Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 43
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
RenHoek said:
I am open to discussion of why you think my opinions are based on delusions of grandeur, but I see no problem with accepting the passages as they are written based on what I have sited. I feel there has been no compelling evidence to change my mind. I respect the fact that there are those who disagree, but I do not feel there is justification for their conclusions in light of scripture.
I would probably be more adamant if I felt it was an eternal issue, but I see this as a questionable matter not worthy of body division. I am really in this area/thread to see what all the hubbub is about. I want to hear rebuttal to my arguments so I can build my faith and make sure I am thinking correctly. I feel I am, as I assume you feel you are.
I understand that there are feelings out there that people are too close to worshiping the Bible itself and all the rest of the arguments against my position. I feel perfectly justified standing before my Maker some day and giving account for my view of scripture and what it tells us of creation. I must assume that you and others feel the same way.
I'm not aware of any theologian who said that he read Scripture as it was written. That an ever deeper apprehension of the revelation of God is the purpose of theology has been the traditional view. This notion of "I read it as it was written" is evident of a person who is very certain about the accuracy and precision of his interpretation. Given the sheer volume of theologians who disagree with your interpretation, I would not be so quick to make such a statement. Again, not that you are wrong and the theologians who came before were right, but that in making such a drastic break from the traditional reading, you might make your arguments with a little more humility.
RenHoek said:I do have a problem with the dismissal of scripture as myth. If you, or others, do not have the same issues, it is yours to answer for, as my views are mine to answer for.
And here is evidence of the crux of the problem, and why I would say your hubris is overcoming your judgment. Nobody is dismissing anything (that I've read). A myth is a form of literature. The implications of the content of myth are no more or less significant than those of literal historical documents. But they are different. Furthermore, I contend that it is nearly impossible for a society to put value in both, simultaneously. But, nevertheless, if God communicates both through myth and through historical narratives, then it doesn't help to call one by the name of the other and thereby show that God happens to value the same things as one's society.
Please read this carefully. Until you understand it, you will be talking past us. Your self-stated purpose, here, will be totally fruitless until you understand the positions of those with whom you disagree. You cannot test your own views until you have understood the views against which you argue. And, I assure you, as long as you think we are dismissing Genesis because it is mythical, you do not understand.
Upvote
0