The book of genesis...
Dr. Alister McGrath (theologian): The Christian Church is always wrestled with the interpretation of Scripture
Realizing both: how important it is, and also sometimes how difficult it is to get it right
And certainly the opening chapters of Genesis have been a topic of much debate throughout Christian history
Dr. John Polkinghorne (Reverend, Physicis): The Bible is very important to me.
But it's very important to recognize the Bible is not a book. The Bible is a library
It has all sorts of different kinds of writing in it: It has history, it has stories, it has poetry, it has prose.
When we read Genesis 1, we have to figure out "What am I reading? am I reading a divinely dictated textbook to save me the trouble of doing science?
or am i reading something in fact more interesting and profound than that.
Dr. John Walton (professor of Old Testament. Wheaton College): We have to approach Genesis 1 for what it is: it's an ancient document.
It's not a document that was written to us
We believe the Bible is written for us like it's for everyone of all times and places
Because it's God's Word. But it wasn't written to us
it wasn't written in our language, it wasn't written with our culture in mind or our culture in view
It's not about the authority of Scripture. It's about the interpretation of Scripture.
What method of interpretation do I use in the case of each individual passage.
Dr. Karen Strand Winslow (Professor of Biblical Studies at Azusa Pacific University): Biblical scholars urge people to take a literal plain reading in the text
but I think in the controversy between theology and science literal is often used to mean scientific
as if it's scientific and that's a whole different story.
We're inclined by our culture to think of the creation narrative as an account of material origins because we think about the world in material terms
for us that's kind of what's important about origins
people come to scripture thinking that they need to integrate it with science
and so they want to either read science out of the Bible or they want to read science into the Bible
that's not the way to do it because inevitably you end up making the text say things that it never meant to the ancient audience.
Dr. Chris Tilling (New Testament Studies. St. Paul Theological Center): We are importing meaning into the text. We are bringing our own presuppositions and assumptions into a text
and reading it in light of that as if it were in the text.
Now, there's a sense in which we all inevitably do that
But there is also a sense in which we need to be aware when the times when we do that are damaging to the reading of the text
Dr. Nancey Murphy (Professor of Christian Philosophy. Fuller Theological Seminary): When I was a kid and a film industry was still relatively new
it was possible to depict people from two centuries ago as modern americans dressed up in togas
As the film industry has gotten more sophisticated
they've gotten better and better at creating human figures
that actually look and behave and think as they probably would have in the past
So, we Bible-readers ought to be equally sophisticated
and recognize that someone who is writing 3,000 years ago --which is very hard to imagine--
these people must have been very different from us, with very different concerns
they certainly had very very different understandings about how material things worked
Dr. Peter Enns (Old Testament Scholar): One of the benefits of understanding the historical circumstances of the Bible
is we're reminded of how incredibly old this literature is
let's understand it in view of what we could even remotely expect of the biblical writers to say
We can understand what our own creation stories are saying better
if we know what the creation myths were that were known at the times that those stories were written.
For instance to realize that a lot of the Genesis stories were written as a countermeasure against the other cultures creation stories.
That throws an immense amount of light on what parts of the story were supposed to be paying attention to
The Gilgamesh epic for example has a flood narrative and so forth and so it wants to reflect creatively and theologically in light of those creation myths
so it's going to be something recognizable
Genesis 1 shares theological vocabulary with the other stories. It just sort of takes things and turns it on its head
if one creation myth talks about the earth being created as a result of the battle between gods
We know to look in our creation stories to say: wait a minute. Is is violence intrinsic to the very creation of our universe?
and we find it very clearly written that no it's not
it's Israel's declaration that Yahweh is worthy of worship
it's a potent and counterintuitive theological statement in the ancient world
Where people say: that's totally different from anything we've ever seen
historians in the ancient world weren't so concerned with minut literal accuracy as we are today
People wrote not to give you a sort of factual journalistic account of what was going on.
But to tell you the significance of what was happening
Dr. Ard Louis (Theoretical Physics / Oxford): So what we see that there are these really interesting structures in the Genesis text
which suggests that it's not describing the creation process as "this is the order in which happened"
Rather is taking that story and emphasizing theological points
it talks about days (there's morning, there is evening)
But the Sun and the moon are not created until the fourth day
So, why, for example, did the writer of Genesis put the Sun the moon on the fourth day?
That's a very strange thing to do and it's not as if it's only moderns who realize "oh dear, something is wrong"
People at any time of history would have realized that was an unusual way of writing down a journalistic accounts
and of course the reason most likely is that people of that day worship the Sun and the moon
and the Israelites were always being drawn away that way and there are people around them were doing that
And so what the writer was saying is: No. I'm gonna demote these things to the fourth day.
They're not the first thing that were created. There's something created somewhat later
N.T. Wright (Theologian): This is simply the sort of language that people use to refer to concrete events
but to invest those events with their theological significance
we're well aware that people have to translate the language for us
we forget that people have to translate the culture for us
and therefore if we want to get the best benefit from the communication we need to try to enter their world
hear it as the audience would have heard it. As the author would have meant it
and to read it in those terms
[Reciting Genesis in Hebrew]
There is a distinction which is there in Scripture between heaven and earth
But the thing about heaven and earth is that they're supposed to overlap
and have an interesting interlocking interplay with one another
they are never supposed to be far apart
in the ancient world they didn't have a line between supernatural and natural.
God was in everything
you couldn't talk about God intervening
because you can't intervene in something that you're doing
and to them God was doing it all.
That kind of functional aspect that was very important to them
in Genesis God makes heavens and earth and it appears that humans are in the world but God is around as well
because the heavens on earth have not split apart.
The temple and the cosmos are kind of all blended into one
if we used a modern metaphor it almost be like the temple was the Oval Office
it's kind of where all the business is done. Where the work is run.
It's the hub of activity and of control
and when deity took up his rest in the temple it wasn't for leisure or relaxation
it was to settle down to the work now that everything's set up and ready to go
Telling a story about somebody who construct something in six days, it's a temple story
it's about God making a place for himself to dwell
And this is heaven and earth. And what you do with that is: the last thing is you put an image of the God into this temple
And suddenly Genesis 1 instead of it being: "were there six days, were there five or were there seven or were there 24 hours"
it's actually about when the good creator God made the world
he made heaven and earth as the space in which he himself was going to dwell
And putting humans into that construct as a way of both reflecting his own love into the world
and drawing out the praise and glory from the world back to himself.
And that's the literal meaning of Genesis
to flatten that out into: "this is simply telling us that the world is made in six days"
is is almost perversely to avoid the real thrust of the narrative
Michael Ramsden (Apologetics. Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University): If this is an inspired book
Okay
If this really is you know something where God is revealing and can speak through it
It shouldn't surprise us we find multiple layers of depth
Genesis is one of those books --like a Shakespeare play or like a Beethoven symphony or something--
Where you can describe what it sort of literally says
Here's a Beethoven symphony. Here are the notes: ♪♪ da da da da ♪♪.
And you think: well, that doesn't actually catch what's going on in this
And you want to use bigger language about the opening of Beethoven's fifth symphony
this is an amazing statement about the power of Empire and the fate of man and goodness knows what
You still got to play the notes
this world was made to be God's abode, God's home, God's dwelling
He's shared it with us. And he now wants to rescue it and redeem it
So that we have to read Genesis for all it's worth
And to say: Either history or myth. Is a way of saying: I'm not going to study this text for what is worth
I'm just gonna flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask.
And I think that's a form of actually being unfaithful to the text itself.
The account in Genesis 1 is not intended to be an account of material origins
if that's so, the Bible has no narrative of material origins.
And if that's so, then we don't have to defend the Bible's narrative of material origins against a a scientific narrative
because the Bible doesn't offer one
We can let the text be what it is, and take it for what it is
That's the most literal reading that you could have.
For more infomation >> Une délicieuse recette de soupe pour perdre du poids et dégonfler le ventre - Duration: 7:43. 
For more infomation >> El desafío local de Podemos en Andalucía - Duration: 7:00. 
For more infomation >> Torrent viaja a Bruselas para abordar la posible investidura de Puigdemont - Duration: 3:42. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét