Gen.1

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

BRIDEAN
The point is that the Babylonian myths were CURRENT during the time
that Genesis was written so I am NOT going "ahead".  The theory I am
proposing is that the author was making a comment about the Babylonian
myths more so than trying to make a scientific statement about the
time of creation.

SJW
So you are saying that we need to read the Bible in the context of the
times?  Then why does any part of that book apply to us now?  If we
use your theory, then we must not take anything in the Bible at face
value.  You are finally getting the big picture!

BRIDEAN
I am simply saying that we should apply the SAME standards to understanding
the Bible that we do ANY OTHER book.  Therefore I agree with Ian that we should
not skip around the Bible or refer to any FUTURE book.  But I think it is ok to
refer to books that the author of Genesis would have been familiar with.

After all, would you read Chaucer or Shakespeare at face value?  They don't
write in 20th century American English do they?  Or would you refer to 
commentarys?  But since Ian (probably rightfully) does not want us to refer
to modern commentarys for the Bible then we are left with trying to understand
the times that the author of Genesis was living in.  Unfortunately the author of
Genesis didn't write in 20th century American English either.

Having said that I would agree with Ian that we shouldn't refer to a commentary
to the Bible.  This is because although a commentary of Chaucer is likely not  
to be biased in any important way, a commentary on the Bible IS likely to
be biased in MANY important ways.

• Previous message: Gen.1
• Next message: Genesis 1
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]