Glenn wrote: "Liberals accept science but make the Bible little more than a
fairy tale and conservatives make fools of themselves by denying what is
clearly before their eyes. It all makes one wonder if Christians would know
the truth if it hit them in the face!"
As a practicing "liberal," I have to take issue with that, Glenn.
"little more than a fairy tale" is a phrase that predetermines the outcome
of your argument.
And not all conservatives deny the evidence.
By polarizing the question, you make it difficult to discuss.
For this "liberal," and I really don't like the label very much, the
"language of appearance" argument takes care of many of the apparent
problems. We still say the sun comes up in the morning, when we know darn
well it is the horizon that goes down. The argument that people of
2000-3000 years ago did not discern with any clarity the difference between
"real historical fact" and "stories we have been told from our youth"
handles most of the rest. When Peter, for instance, referred to the Flood,
he referred to "what everybody had known since childhood," and the literal
history of the event was not anything he, or his audience, even thought
about. maybe they would have cared; who knows. Assume for a moment that
Peter cared, and had done the necessary research (many years) to conclude
that the flood was possibly local. Or even that God had whispered that fact
to him as he began his essay. what would he have possibly done with that
information? Would we have a longer book of Peter in the NT, one that
explained the scientific (20th century view) of the flood before he made
his argument?
I think not.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 14:05:21 EST