Re: George's reply to Howard

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 17:04:07 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: George's reply to Howard"

    At 09:36 AM 08/12/2002 +0000, Jim Eisele wrote:

    >While I'm writing, I'm curious how many of the NT miracles
    >you accept. I won't be offended if you consider that to be
    >too personal a question. With a few exceptions, I think
    >most of this list has accepted Gen 1-11 as mythology/exaggeration.
    >It's gotten a little boring to talk about.
    >Take care,

    Jim, I would not say it that way. Gen.1-11 is not mythology, nor is it
    exaggeration. We want to translate something written in a background
    strange to us, with an outlook on life we do not understand into a story
    acceptable to scientists (of all kinds) in the 20th and 21st
    century. These modern scientist have a particular outlook on life (say
    philosophy of life), consequently on story-telling, which they then want to
    use on writings of a century they do not understand. That never
    works. Translators of the Bible know that, and I am convinced that they
    even translate words incorrectly because of that. However, very few of us
    are willing to study those possibilities, and do our own research, which
    then may result in still another translation.
    Is it boring? I don't think so, but it may be dangerous in some churches,
    if you want to remain a member of the church, the community of saints.

    Jan de Koning

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 17:58:26 EST