Re: George's reply to Howard

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 13:52:56 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: George's reply to Howard"

    Jan writes

    >>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.

    >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.

    My point was that you can't take the words at face value. We all
    (except the in-denial YECs) accept that. To me, the next logical
    question is "what about the New Testament?" Are these more historically
    inaccurate "stories" to "make a theological point?" Did Jesus raise from
    the dead "in a spiritual sense?" If we can destroy the meaning of words
    in the OT, it is only intellectually honest to challenge the NT as well.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 01:03:31 EST