glenn morton wrote:
............................................
> You may have the last word.
Our basic difference continues to be that your insistence on reading all of the
narratives in Scriptural as accurate history. That seems to me to be an imposition of
_a priori_ interpretation of Scripture which will not allow the texts to speak for
themselves.
2 perhaps related points:
1) I hope you don't have to get involved with criminal law in Scotland but
you'll find that "guilty" and "not guilty" are not the only possible verdicts. Under
Scots law a jury can also return a verdict of "not proven." Perhaps this is a parable.
2) Apropos the whole question of historical accuracy, the American public has
only hazy ideas of history & it's likely to get worse. I saw the movie "Gladiator"
yesterday. It was pretty good as entertainment (albeit very violent) but its few points
of real history were only for the purpose of completely rewriting what really happened
with the emperors Marcus Aurelius & Commodus. & this is likely to have far greater
influence than anything accurate information people will get about the Roman Empire in
school.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 11:06:14 EDT