> Once again, this is not a matter of literalism but of
history. How much of
> the Bible can be fable and it still be inspired? Can all of Genesis be
> allegory? Can the Exodus (for which there is no evidence at present) be fake?
>
> What about the Messianic lineage? If the lineage is not true (and it can't be
> if Adam, Seth ... Noah etc were not real people) what does that do to Christ's
> claim and what does that mean for the truth of the Gospel accounts themselves
> which incorporate such grossly non-historical lineages? If the early part of
> Luke lineage is false, is the latter part false also? Is Jesus really related
> to David? The same lineage which relates him to David relates him to Adam.
> If the Gospels themselves can not be trusted to tell us WHO Jesus is related
> to on this earth, which I can see, how can it be trusted to tell us who Jesus
> is related to in heaven, which I can't see? (I can just hear one fellow I work
> with asking me this) Can a document with "admittedly" non-historical
> genealogies be a document that we can trust to tell us the way to God?
>
> And if Genesis, and other suspect scriptures are fictional stories designed to
> teach us lessons about life, what makes the Bible better than Aesop's Fables,
> which are also designed to teach us lessons about life? These are the kinds
> of questions my friends ask. What do I answer them?
>
> In the case when we say much of Scripture is not real, let me ask Pilate's
> question (John 18:38), "What is Truth?"
>
> glenn
EXACTLY MY POINT...(*_*)
John Misasi