From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 15:57:51 EDT
>The implications of the JEPD view are very serious. Belief in the
>reliability of the bible in general (not only historically, but also
>theologically), and in its divine inspiration in particular, is
>virtually made impossible.
I guess, for me, there is another way to look at the Bible (one which
was tragically impossible when I was a YEC). As a YEC you are
constantly denying evidence.
It has provided much freedom to look at the Bible with new eyes. I
still believe in the history, but (sorry YECs out there) now I believe
in the truth, not a lie.
Yes, to me at least, JEPD trivializes inspiration. I can't say that
I've spent a lot of time on it, and here's why. Truth is truth. It
doesn't matter who tells the story, as long as it is true.
My general impression is that "liberal ideas" tend to get refuted by
further evidence. One of these is our understanding of when writing
first existed. Another is the historicity of David.
At this point in time, I don't think that I could tell you what the
biggest threat to the doctrine of "historical as well as theological"
The day-age option is being broadcast loud and clear. Some may not
accept it, but the sequential progression from a formless and void earth,
through the lower life forms up until Adam and Eve merits consideration.
>The view accepted by most scholars is the source-critical JEPD view
>which divides the text of Genesis to Deuteronomy into many fragments
>(some of them just fractions of a sentence) attributed to mainly 4
>sources: J (Yahwist (in German, Yahweh is Jahwe), 850 B.C.), E (Elohist,
>850 B.C.), P (priestly writer, 550-450 B.C.), and D (deuteronomist, 620
I don't mean to demean scholars, and I confess that I haven't spent as
much time dissecting the Bible as they (though I have read the entire
Bible, the NT twice). But, now that we know Moses could write :-)...
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 02:17:09 EDT