Patti, For what it's worth, I agreed with nearly everything you wrote. Here is a message I recently posted to a creation-evolution list on this subject:
>> Well, you are just renaming the notions of literalism and liberal interpretation. >> Words taken for their plain text meaning are "terms", or literalism. Phrases, >> sentences, and larger structures of text taken as some kind or story or literary >> illustration are "concepts", or liberal interpretations.<< Correct. I would argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as "plain text meaning." Definitions are what we get from pursuing the dictionary. Meanings are what exist in the minds of the writers, speakers, readers, or listeners. The most helpful way to determine "meaning," IMO, is through a combination of contextualization - examining the literary, historical, social, and cultural contexts of the speaker or writer - and deep reflection - including phenomenological epoche (bracketing) and intersubjectivity. >>Whatever you want to call it, the YEC looks at the plain text as "God breathed", and >>therefore perfect. If God wanted to say something else through His chosen spokesmen >>he would have.<< You have defined the words, but you did not examine the concepts. Conceptual understandings are only possible, in my view, by using something approximating the procedure I summarized above. In other words, I don't see how one can even partially encompass the meanings in a text unless one engages in textual criticism and reflection. There is certainly no such thing as "plain meaning" when one is examining documents authored thousands of years ago. >>I have a great deal of respect for anyone who achieves a PhD, regardless of the >>subject. But no amount of education qualifies you to re-write the Word of God.<< I see it the other way around. If one believes one is has discovered the plain meaning of a text, without a scholarly examination of what was in the mind of its authors, then one is basically turning that text into a mirror of one's own belief system and, in effect, rewriting it. >>I suspect you are trivializing this response or you were engaged with an >>inarticulate student. A better point would be that every "expert" brings their own >>interpretation to the "concept". By your approach every miracle of Jesus could be >>just a "concept".<< A text is merely a permutation of words. Judging it to be discussing "miracles" is drawing a conclusion. Text needs to be distinguished from context. >>The resurrection could be just a "concept".<< No, "resurrection" is a word, not a concept. The concept is what it means (to the writer and the reader). >>Everlasting life through Christ could be just a "concept".<< As above. >>Your dividing line between fact and fable is arbitrary, despite the fact that >>through years of education you have developed what you consider to be a sound set of >>tests to discern the difference.<< I never specified a dividing line between fact and fable. In fact, I have none. In principle, I am an adherent of the strong form of the divine command theory in the philosophy of religion, especially as formulated by William of Ockham. God can do whatever He wills, and there is no "good" prior to God's command. In other words, whatever God wills is good by definition. What I believe, however, is in understanding texts properly. I have no objection to miracles. In fact, I would contend that they happen from time to time. However, I would also argue that God created the universe in such a way that it can be understood by scientific means alone, which, to me, is a sign of God's grace to us. As I see it, we can observe God's footprint in the universe, not through engaging in the scientific method, but through meditation and prayer. >>Of course the writers did not put their own meanings to the Word, God breathed the >>Word. If God wanted to breath the Word you prefer He would have.<< That is what I had in mind about not distinguishing between words and concepts. The assumption of those who engage in word studies, whether using Strong's, Youngs, Vine's, or one of the books especially created for that purpose, is that there is a uniformity of meaning, regardless of the biblical author, for the same word. I do not accept that idea. Even those who believe in verbal inerrancy, which I do not, will generally acknowledge that the biblical authors put the "thoughts of God" into their own words. >>Lots of Christians of all stripes do weird things, we all do sometimes, so what? >>That doesn't diminish the serious points raised on any particular side of an issue.<< I find much in neo-evangelicalism, especially its moderate forms, that I can appreciate. For instance, even though I do not agree with it, I respect John Sanders' work (openness theism), and I regularly visit the theologyweb.com site, and their chat room on PalTalk, where some of the managers are openness theists. On the other hand, I reject the manner in which they reduce God to a fallible interlocutor with the human race. Mark A. Foster * Portal: http://MarkFoster.net CompuServe: http://boards.M.Foster.name __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
