I'm torn...
3
-
Related: hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3453/4150– James SheweyApr 27, 2018 at 14:21
-
2I suppose it's the hi-tech equivalent of building Noah's ark based on the instructions in Genesis.– DɑvïdApr 28, 2018 at 20:05
-
I understand the hermeneutic value but was concerned it could become a technical discussion and might be more at home in a more geeky setting. Not that you guys aren't geeks, mind you. Interestingly the Ark Encounter apparently has a staff of hundreds but the original ark, full of animals was staffed by only 8 including at least one pregnant woman. And they built the box, gathered the supplies, etc. That adds a lot of unintended information to the simulation, I think.– RuminatorMay 11, 2018 at 12:17
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Sure why not? It actually has quite a bit of bearing about what can or cannot be done based on the text. What information we have available in the text pretty much determines the answer the the question. I don't see any harm in keeping it even if it is a little bit off our beaten path.
That seems OK to me too. It's not the first time the reading of a text has been influenced by science and technology. Passages that have the sun rising and setting used to be taken as pointing to an earth centred cosmology. Now we read them as poetry or as description according to appearances. (We do the same today, with times for "sunset" being given in the papers.) Using computer power to test possible readings of a text is just the 21st century equivalent.