Re: Exegesis or Eisegesis?

From: george murphy (
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 20:10:09 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Postmodernism and my statement"

    Dick Fischer wrote:

    > George Murphy wrote
    >> I see no point in continuing this thread since Dick apparently has
    >> no interest in responding to my arguments.
    > I answered the only question you asked. You then went on to say:

             Conversations don't have to be conducted in question and answer
    format. If you don't want to carry on a conversation then just drop it,
    but don't suggest that I haven't given you anything to respond to.



    George L. Murphy
    The Science-Theology Interface"

    > "Dick seems to have totally missed the point here - either that or his
    > omission of my reference to Genesis shows that he saw it quite
    > clearly! It's clear that the writer of the Genesis account used the
    > concepts of an archaic cosmology in order to speak about God's
    > creation of the world. No sensible person today thinks that that
    > oudated picture of the world has to be accepted if one is going to
    > believe the theological claims of Genesis. I.e., those claims are
    > cannot simply be identified with the way in which the world is
    > described there.
    > As Christians, we presumably believe that scripture is in some sense
    > inspired by the Holy Spirit. The example of Genesis 1 shows that the
    > Spirit seems to have been willing to condescend to the use of
    > less-than-perfect concepts - & in fact ones that from the standpoint
    > of today's science quite obsolete - in order to convey God's message
    > to us.
    > If we are going to use what Paul says in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15
    > to develop a theological anthropology, we will have to at least
    > consider the possibility that the concept of an historical individual
    > Adam as the single male ancestor of all humans is also part of a view
    > of the world which we need no longer accept.
    > Note that I say "at least consider the possibility." Of course we need
    > to try to grasp Paul's theological argument before we can decide what
    > is essential to it and what is simply the language that he uses to
    > express it. But this can't be done if one doesn't even recognize the
    > difference in principle."
    > I don't see a question in there anyplace.
    > Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    > "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 20:11:02 EST