[b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer, keep personal beliefs off-list

B. M. Rocine brocine at twcny.rr.com
Fri Jun 11 19:00:50 EDT 2004


Hold on gents.

Believe me, I find people's different views on what is "authorative"
intriguing, but the topic is beyond the scope of this list.  We'll have to
take such pursuits off-list.

Thank you.

Bryan Rocine
b-hebrew co-chair


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Costa" <tmcos at rogers.com>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer


> George, while you hold the Hebrew Bible and New Testament to be
> "authoritative", what do you mean by this? Are they just as authoritative
as
> Homer's Illiad? The Amarna letters? Would you regard the Enuma Elish as
> authoritative on par with Gen 1-2? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh just as
> authoritative as the story of Noah in Gen 6-9? Why do choose the biblical
> text  over contemporary writings of the time whether they be Canaanite,
> Babylonian or Assyrian? Is this question really one of relativism? In
other
> words, what do you believe constitutes authority in the Bible? When you
> allude to the fact that the Bible need not "be authoritative for science,
> history, geography, cosmogony, etc." are you implying that truth and fact
> are trivial matters in the Bible? Does not the Bible also contain element
of
> history, geography and cosmogony?
>
> Tony Costa
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel at juno.com>
> To: <tmcos at rogers.com>
> Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Job & Sumer
>
>
> > It may surprise some who have read my comments about mythology and
> > literary criticism, but I myself consider the texts which form the canon
> > of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to be authoritative.  I simply
> > don't require that they be authoritative for science, history,
geography,
> > cosmogony, etc.  If they are scientifically inaccurate by reflecting the
> > viewpoints of their time, so what?  If they are historically inaccurate
> > as being written at a time when the events were no longer well-known, so
> > what?  Are these things what they are meant to inculcate?  It seems to
me
> > that such a view would reduce faith to a kind of knowledge -- if you
> > "know" the right things, you're OK.  I view faith as a trusting in God
> > for all things good which doesn't mean that I need to correctly explain
> > them.  Thus it is not that anyone who doesn't accept these texts as
> > historically accurate also doesn't accept them as "authoratative [sic!]
> > and sacred text."
> >
> > gfsomsel
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list