How to Read Genesis Literally | Kevin Vanhoozer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Lecture Title - From the Literal Interpretation of Genesis to the Doctrine of Literal Six-Day Creation
This lecture shines light on what has become an obscure idea: literal meaning and interpretation. Literality has become obscure because different biblical interpreters mean many different things by it. Yet literality matters if Thomas Aquinas is right that only Scripture’s literal sense establishes doctrine. In this lecture, Vanhoozer will explore the diverse meanings of literality by examining the history of interpretation, using the opening chapters of Genesis as a case study, in particular, the creation of light and lights. He will then examine arguments for and against young-earth creationism, a flash point in the debate over the necessity of literal interpretation for biblical authority. The constructive proposal that emerges sets out a properly dogmatic account of creation and introduces the concept of “theological literality,” a notion used to highlight the importance both of divine intention for understanding the literal sense of Scripture and of literality for understanding the personal agency of God.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (PhD University of Cambridge) is Research Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is the author and editor of numerous books, including The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge University Press, 2010), Faith Speaking Understanding: Performing the Drama of Doctrine (Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), and Hearers and Doers: A Pastor’s Guide to Making Disciples Through Scripture and Doctrine (Lexham Press, 2019).
The Henry Center for Theological Understanding provides theological resources that help bridge the gap between the academy and the church. It houses a cluster of initiatives, each of which is aimed at applying practical Christian wisdom to important kingdom issues-for the good of the church, for the soul of the theological academy, for the sake of the world, and ultimately for the glory of God. The HCTU seeks to ground each of these initiatives in Scripture, and it pursues these goals collaboratively, in order to train a new generation of wise interpreters of the Word-lay persons and scholars alike-for the sake of tomorrow’s church, academy, and world.
Visit the HCTU website: henrycenter.ti...
Subscribe to the HCTU Newsletter: bit.ly/326pRL5
Connect with us!
/ henry_center
/ henrycenter
/ thehenrycenter
/ thehenrycenter
Great!
Brilliant! I agree with most and I learned from all (of it). 🙏
I have a dear Bahai friend who struggles to understand that Jesus Christ is the exegesis of God. What she (and all Bahai people actually) does not realise is that any knowledge of God outside this personal revelation in the single God-man Jesus, (whether it be philosophical or intellectual or religious or whatever) must be invalid. This is because God has not revealed himself that way. God has revealed himself personally in Jesus, exclusively and totally. The literalist vs the literary interpretation (depending on how you define those terms) are issues of hermeneutics. Yes we must get to God's intention through the human writers first and understand the genre of literature in which he has chosen to communicate the propositions of Scripture in order for us to understand what it says initially. Anyone can do that. We may thereby have an accurate understanding of what the propositions actually mean. But in order to know the actual transcendent reality to which they point, that is the living God in Christ, we may only do this via the living Spirit with whom He is one God and who reveals Christ to us personally and in no other way. We don't want a picture of God we want God himself. If done correctly exegesis is doxological.
"God could have created things in six literal 24 hour-days. No problem. But neither the text nor its literal interpretation demand that understanding" (44min09). Eventually, the interpretation does not fundamentally rely on exegetical presuppositions but on philosophical and theological ones, and more specifically on ontological presuppositions about God's being.
Gotta love those illustrative overheads
Gostaria que as pregações chegasse a nós em português também
Good talk... "The obstacle which prevents the so-called religious man from accepting the teachings of God is literal interpretation." - Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, Baha'i Faith
I wouldn't be so radical. I would say either a literal or a non literal interpretation depends primordially on one's understanding of God's reality/being. Once one is aware of it, one can understand why he/she can consistently support Abdul'L-Baha's view or not. In other words, both view are possible, but the both of them would be mutually exclusive because of their assumed theological presuppositions on God's being.
I have a dear Bahai friend who struggles to understand that Jesus Christ is the exegesis of God. What she (an all Bahai people actually) does not realise is that any knowledge of God outside this personal revelation in the single God-man Jesus, (whether it be philosophical or intellectual or religious or whatever) must be invalid. This is because God has not revealed himself that way. God has revealed himself personally in Jesus, exclusively and totally. The literalist vs the literary interpretation (depending on how you define those terms) are issues of hermeneutics. Yes we must get to God's intention through the human writers first and understand the genre of literature in which he has chosen to communicate the propositions of Scripture in order for us to understand what it says initially. Anyone can do that. We may thereby have an accurate understanding of what the propositions actually mean. But in order to know the actual transcendent reality to which they point, that is the living Christ we may only do this via the living Spirit with whom He is one God and who reveals Christ to us personally and in no other way. We don't want a picture of God we want God himself. If done correctly exegesis is doxological.
It depends on whether one's interpretation is linguistically, literarily, historically, and culturally justified according to the principles of hermeneutics.