From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 12 1998 - 20:05:37 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Athas [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 1998 11:07 AM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: Re: John 1:1
> Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
> > [Andrew]
> > Unfortunately, Jim West did not know the author of Gen 1,
> > neither is he omniscient so he no authority to make the above
> > afiirmation.
> Andrew, you too are making a judgment on the intentions and purposes
> of the
> author, just as much as Jim, though from a polar opposite stance. If
> Jim has
> no authority to make his comment, then neither does anyone else. I
> think his
> comments are perfectly legitimate. Whether one agrees with them or not
> depends on grounds other than the fact that Jim is not omniscient - it
> really up to personal interpretation of the text. I don't think Jim
> can be
> criticised for making a remark on how he reads the text.
Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I should have. Jim
does not (and neither does anyone else, including myself) have the
authority to make *absolute* affirmations.
Yes Jim (and I) are making personal interpretations of the text
and I have no objection to that. I do, on the other hand, have a problem
with making absolute affirmations - they strike may as being rather
> > Whether, the author was interested in science or not, he was
> > certainly interested in History - and history and theology are
> > NOT mutually exclusive.
> However, history and theology are not necessarily historiography.
> There is a
> distinction. Regardless of what science and history have to say or
> will have
> to say has no bearing whatsoever on Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, the
> author is
> making the statement that God created the universe. It is not
> necessarily a
> treatise on HOW God created the universe or even when. I realise many
> will have conflicting views on this, but the bottom line is that the
> is not primarily interested in telling us how and when God created the
> universe. He simply states the theological maxim that God did create
> universe. And he does this through a very neat literary vehicle: God
> by creating various domains of life and then fills these domains with
> topping everything off with mankind. The author is indicating that all
> things exist because God created them and set them in an orderly
> This base fact is undeniable. It is then up to personal interpretation
> whether or not Genesis 1 is also historiographic in nature or not. For
> reason, I don't think Jim can be criticised for his view. Neither can
> Andrew. However, we must refrain from slandering others who do not
> share our
> particular interpretation - especially on this discussion list.
I was not slandering Jim. He is quite welcome to his own
interpretation. But we all must be careful to present our own
interpretations with a little less arrogance. Yes, I too have been
guilty of this on occasion.
It is much better to state an interpretation and then give all
the supporting evidence and reasoning that led you to that view than
just making absolute affirmations.
Now to matters of Greek:
I remeber stumbing across a web page which had a discussion of
the differences between Classical and Koine Greek.
Does anyone know where/what this site is?
-- Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS Software Engineer CelsiusTech Australia Endeavour House,Technology Park, The Levels, S.A. 5095 Phone : +61 8 8343 3837 (Direct) Fax : +61 8 8343 3778 Email : email@example.com
"God is dead." -- Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead." -- God
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:03 EDT