Re: Genealogies (was Re: personal revelations)

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 13:40:59 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)"

    George wrote: " You still seem to be missing the point which I made in my
    post of 4 the extent I am interested in it, it's because I want
    to know what theological point Mt was trying to make with this particular
    arrangement. Of course that is to give him the benefit of the doubt &
    assume that he had a theological point, & wasn't just careless. When an
    author says something that seems odd, characterizing all attempts to
    understand what he or she was getting at as "ad hoc" doesn't seem very
    helpful to me: It assumes _a priori_ that the passage really doesn't make
    sense, and that anybody who thinks that it may is practicing eisegesis. Of
    course there's the possibility that Mt just made an arithmetic error. Smart
    people have been known to do that & it wouldn't shake my faith if Mt did."

    1. No, I got your point. I just did not agree with it.
    2. I am as interested as you are if there really IS a theological point to
    3. I do not assume a priori that there is not.
    4. I wrestled with this sort of thing a lot in the past year. Francis Bacon
    (or was it Roger) said that what a person wants to be true he preferentially
    believes. I want the Bible to be inerrant. But I cannot approach that issue
    deductively -- I cannot presume inerrancy and then force fit what I find to
    that model. Perhaps it is my science education -- now an innate part of my
    being -- that tells me the objectivist approach is to be preferred.
    5. The fact that the writer of Mt made an error has 0 to do with my faith.
    On that, at least, we can agree.


    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 08 2003 - 13:41:08 EST