Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Wed Aug 01 2007 - 21:27:43 EDT

  The following statement is confusing: "What I dismiss is the notion that it is interpreted as a literal historical event."
  Do you really dismiss 'the notion' that is so interpreted, or do you dismiss those who interpret it as such? I ask because it is plainly obvious that 'it' is "interpreted as a literal historical event" by more than a few people, including scholars.
  We are stuck with some binary's, as mentioned already: figurative and literal, but also mythical and real. I would prefer to stick to a critical realism when interpreting the events (written in the text, whose original language I don't read), such that both are left open for usage. Saying there is a mythical dimension to the Genesis account does not threaten its reality as an historical event.
  It may come down to immanent and transcendent once again, but let's not act as if divine time and space and time and space as understood by human beings disallows there to be 'literal' truths found in Genesis. The fear of being labeled a 'creationist' shouldn't sway a person from defending a perspective that simply doesn't involve 'creation science' yet which believes in (a) Creation all the same.

  G. Arago
  p.s. didn't follow what was meant by 'metaphor' being more meaningful than history??
Iain Strachan <> wrote:

Where did I say I was dismissing it??

What I dismiss is the notion that it is interpreted as a literal historical event.

As an example I've given several times before, but no-one has commented; I'm about to click the "send" button to send this message off to everyone on the list. But I'm NOT literally doing that - I'm literally clicking the same button on the mouse that I'd click if I clicked the "discard" button.

I am of the opinion that metaphor is MORE meaningful than history, not less. Of COURSE the narrative is central to the Christian faith, which is why it's so sad that people get "stuck" on the idea that it's a literal event & then have to invent laughable pseudo-science (and I've had to endure my atheist colleagues laughing at it) in order to justify it.

Please retract your assertion that I "dismiss" a central narrative of the Christian faith. I find your accusation to be extremely insulting, to be frank.

Just about to click the mythological "send" button...


  On 8/1/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote: But Iain, though I agree with you on the need for a broader hermeneutical perspective, and though I agree with you that it's too pat and simple to attribute carnivorous animals and such to a recent historical fall, I'm really struggling with the way in which, it seems to me, you're dismissing a central narrative of the Christian faith. The picture scripture gives us of human rebellion against God is, in fact, the picture of a man and woman eating fruit God told them not to eat. And scripture does, in fact, suggest that this somehow messes up everything. It seems to me that we need to appropriate this picture and interpret it in the context of what we know about the physical world, but not to dismiss it.

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 1 21:28:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 21:28:07 EDT