At 08:54 AM 10/27/1999 -0500, John_R_Zimmer@rush.edu wrote:
>A legend, even though many of the details are evocative (appeal to
>the emotions or imagination), may be associated with a historic event.
>That is what I regard as historicity. The details cannot be
>regarded as "true or false" in the modern sense of these terms
>(that is, according to the criteria of a "historic or scientifically
>accurate account").
Au contraire, the details can be considered true or false. The legend of
King Arthur contains details of a big round table, chivalry etc. The time
at which the legend took place, I.e. the event the legend is associated
with, had no chivalry. That detail is false. and it is unlikely that there
was a round table, so that detail is also probably false. The legend is a
legend because we can't put a scenario with it that matches reality as it
occurred.
>
>Your qualifier "And the account must ... " seems to lean toward
>applying the "logic of a historically accurate account" rather than
>the "logic of legend". Hence, the appearance (to me) that you approach
>the text from the "logic of inerrancy" rather than the "logic
>of historicity" (or for me, I suppose, "the logic of consilience").
There is no logic of legend. It is merely. Define a syllogism based on the
logic of legend! What you will give me is an INTERPRETATION of what the
legend means and and intepretation of how the legend is to be treated
HISTORICALLY. But you can't outline a logic of legend.
>
>I think that concordism applies the "logic of our yearning to
>see all things in Christ" in that it is a search for 'matches' between
>the early chapters of Genesis and the archaeological and evolutionary
>record. Historicity is part of that match, but it is not the only
>part. Most of all, the associations with history (or, for chapter 1,
>the evolutionary record) follows logics that are not the "logic of a
>scientifically accurate account".
Logic depends upon the truth or falsity of a given statement. Unless you
are speaking of fuzzy logic, the truth or falsity values of logic is 1,0.
Given this, one knows if a thing is real or not real. Why do people of
your persuasion try to bend logic in order to make the Bible be believable?
You spend lots of time trying to come up with novel logics like logic of
legend etc, and try to explain why that which is false by any rational
standard is really true. Why not simply say it isn't believable and retain
the beauty of logic? Logic is built into our brains (God put it there), the
Bible isn't.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution