The 24 hour "evening and mornings" ???
dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Aug 29 10:01:35 EDT 2000
> >It is my belief that, linguistical arguments which contradict
> >sound theological answers -- should be taken with a grain
> >of salt the size of Lot's wife.
> "Sound theological answers" is a polite way to talk about an individual's
> personal or received interpretation of a text and has in itself, no value
> *whatsoever* as evidence in understanding the significance of a text.
God forbid I should agree with Ian :-) but he's absolutely right. The
text is supposed to be the basis for deriving "sound theological
answers" rather than the reverse. If one begins with theological
presuppositions, exegesis becomes a matter of wresting the text
to support one's ideas. That's backwards. It reminds me of the old
cartoon where the fellow is sitting at his desk with an open Bible
and he says "Don't bother me! I'm trying to come up with some
texts to support my preconceived notions!" We're here to deal with
the text first and foremost. Other stuff has to grow out of that or it
has no basis.
"Éist le glór Dé."
More information about the b-hebrew