RE: Assumptions

13 Aug 96 16:45:52 EDT


I'm sorry Mike - you misunderstood my intentions (or more probably
I did not make them very clear)

>> I get the impression that many people think only evangelicals have
>> theological baggage - that is not true - EVERYONE HAS IT!
> I believe this has been clearly expressed in my posts (which you seem
>to have the most problem with) and wonder why you weren't able to
discern my
>admissions of bias which I include overtly and without hesitation?

I certainly did not intend to single you out - it just happened that
way because I quickly skimmed through recent posts for
examples of what I was saying.

>> Recently someone posted a note saying that they didn't agree with
>> much of what was being said about John 8:58 and wouldn't comment
>> on it because 'most of the "exegesis" happening surrounding this
>> (here) is decidedly theological and decidedly "agenda driven."'
>> Now I think this is most definitely an unfair statement. Firstly,
>> poster
>> did not say why He disagreed (he refrused to comment) and secondly
>> the poster did not say in what way the exegesis is decidedly
>> and agenda driven.
> Have you read any of the following posts, Andrew? I actually gave my
>own analysis, and included a disclaimer, i.e., your mileage may vary. I
>am at a loss to understand your failure to see plain statements in these
>which clearly and succinctly disallow your charge? I honestly can't
>how you could have arrived at the conclusion you do. You are welcome to
>opinion, Andrew, but I can only say that I made every conceivable effort
>make clear my own bias, my own agenda, and my own (possible)
>Given the efforts I made in this regard, I can only repeat, how have you
>selectively (mis)heard the content of these posts when the precise
content you
>have complained about was intentionally included by myself as the poster

Yes, you did give your own analysis, but only after Jim McGuire made the
same comment I did. In the post above you made comments about how the
exegesis of John 8:58 on the list was theologocally loaded etc. Now what
objected to was the way your comment came across - You considered Jim
McGuire's (and others) exegesis as theologically loaded - and I got the
impression that yours wouldn't be like that. But now we both agree,
is like that.

Now, you did eventually offer your own exegesis and I thank you for that
but I still think you stated your assumptions rather implicitly. My
was to explicitly state any assumptions made. I am NOT having a go at
I just want to make the arguments on the list easier to follow and
evaluate -
since we all have different perspectives and assumptions.

The quality of the conclusion is only as good as the quality of the

Again, sorry Mike(and everyone else) - no offense intended.

When making assumptions in your exegesis please try and specify them
explicitly - it just makes it easier to know where everyone is coming


| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
| Software Engineer
| British Aerospace Australia
| Technology Park, Adelaide
| ph: +618 343 8211
| email:
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, when you lose your own life in the end?
| ...Look to Jesus Christ