A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[shunyadragon]

Please quote exactly where you feel I have overstated any conclusions of Westermann's commentary!

My reading or that of any other exegete or theologian appreciative of exegesis is only nebulous for those who do not desire to read and understand the texts, especially in the languages in which they are written. To criticize such a reading without even hearing it is akin to ignorantly judging a book by its cover. Similarly, I did not merely provide you with names of 'talking heads' but described for you a school of thought developing within the Christian tradition for nearly 2,000 years that would not be neglected by anyone attempting to have a properly theological understanding of Christian doctrines. Of course, <snip snip>

You have failed to present a coherent argument with citations, other than 'my reading,' which gets you nowhere.

[robrecht]

You have failed to present a coherent argument with citations, other than 'my reading,' which gets you nowhere.

[shunyadragon]

Which post?

[robrecht]

Which post?

What exactly are you requesting? It is I who have requested you to quote where you think I have overstated conclusions of Westermann's commentary.

[shunyadragon]

What exactly are you requesting? It is I who have requested you to quote where you think I have overstated conclusions of Westermann's commentary.

The citation

[robrecht]

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2011, p. 389:

Note that Fiorenza, Professor of Roman Catholic Theological Studies at Harvard Divinity School, previously studied under Karl Rahner, Johann Baptist Metz, and Joseph Ratzinger (before he became Benedict XVI) so he is fairly well acquainted with modern Catholic theology and exegesis. ..."

To which you erroneously responded in your Post #246: "I will take note of this for future reference."

Since it was apparent that you had not understood the quote, I repeated it for you in my post #247.

I am now requesting for the fourth time that you attempt to substantiate your false claim that I have supposedly overstated any conclusions of Westermann's commentary (see already my Posts #s 255, 257, 259).