The author David says;

“To study any work of literature one should be aware of the cultural matrix in which that work was produced. To study the Bible as a work complete in itself while ignoring the cultural matrix in which it was written is not studying the Bible.”

I'm inclined to agree to a point but studying the bible is hardly the only thing one can do with it. What about enjoying it? Revelling in it? Drinking from it? And yes for some clinging to it?

When we sit down to enjoy a good film I'm not sure there are many of us, on the first viewing, switch on the director's narration feature now present on most DVDs. Perhaps the interest might be heightened once we hear from him or her on a second viewing and certainly there will be insights to be gained but I'm not sure the enjoyment level is dramatically enhanced.

Is a deep study of the Bible a necessary component of a deep faith derived and nourished from it? I would argue no. So why then do we seem to insist those who profess such a faith be able to substantiate it with over-arching knowledge of the text and its context?

I'm not laying this entirely at David's feet since besides the preamble and the final paragraph (which reads more like a Ripley's Believe It Or Not) I feel he was quite restrained in the article. However the comments section already contains quite disparaging remarks about those who take their literalism straight up.

I would be concerned if the underlying contention of the piece is that without a thorough study of the context of the biblical books a true understanding of the scriptures can not be obtained. It would smack of ivory tower theology that rightly or wrongly is an anathema to our fundamentalist brethren.

Davidf

You confirm the idiotic notion that evolution is a proven science by claiming that the fossil records endorse your fantasy. Out of the millions of fossils found evolutionist still have to look extremely hard to order to build and produce a story around a transitional form. They really do spend millions on something non existent. The science is about as settled as global warming. As one pollie put it (it is crap). Your claim to evolution being fact is fantasy at best as any honest scientist knows.

Runner, why do you insist on proving that you lack the education to comment on such a topic?

Evolution was well demonstrated by far fewer fossils than we possess today. Every year the earth yields up more. In every case the new ones confirm the case for evolution.

That case is independently and with great resolution supported by DNA sequence analysis, with lesser resulution by ordinary anatomical taxonomy, by observation of current living things and by, at the extreme, the clear fact that organisms exist with heritable change. (your god does not enjoy such existence).

The only way you could arrive at your position is to be willfully ignorant, which is truly contemptible, but possibly the only way to cling to the fragile stories you believe.

As for working hard, well, some of us are good at that. Working hard to understand the nature of life is clearly beyond you. If we were satisfied by garbage, late-night televangelists produce an excess of which you are clearly a customer.

You opinion is worthless on this topic. Go get some references that haven't already been laughed out of the public arena and prove you can read by quoting them. We could do with a laugh. Alternatively, since you probably will not have examined the issue diligently enough to remember any more substantial objections than "pastor don't like it", why don't you trot out some other example besides taxonomy, just to show that you were listening when pastor "exhaustively" debunked evolution for you. (did pastor do the six-week bible study course or the full 18month one, I wonder)

Do try and remember that some of us also passed physics, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and anatomy in just our first degree and so you will need to "show working" like other backward students suspected of getting their answers from others.

Rusty

Fascinating stuff.

runner - you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again.

Do you seriously believe that Eve, the original woman, was fashioned by God from one of Adam's ribs? Further, do you believe that all humans are descended from them?

I wouldn't have thought that they would be difficult questions for a creationist biblical fundy to answer.

CJ Morgan

Your adamic nature points clearly to where you came from. And yes I have no doubt that all humans descended from Adam and Eve. And yes Adam and Eve had children that inter married if that is what you are on about. Do you seriously believe you evolved from a monkey? Do you also believe the aboriginals are less evolved than you as many scientist once believed until it become politcally incorrect.

But what about the rib, runner?

After all, that's the topic.

I mean, if there wasn't the rib bit, there wouldn't be Eve and the whole story would croak.