From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 10:58:36 EDT
I'm struggling with the concept of "watered-down" good news. :-) JimA
Dick Fischer wrote:
> Debbie Mann wrote:
>
> It's one thing to say that some of the Bible may be allegorical or
> explained in terms of false scientific premises. It's something else
> entirely to say that no matter when it was written or who wrote it we
> can take the pretty parts and leave the rest alone. Some of it begs
> for interpretation. Other parts don't. I believe it was Jenkins who
> said, when you can - take it literally.
>
> Where does it start Debbie? When apologists think they have to
> explain away parts of the Old Testament because they aren't dedicated
> enough to figure it out or even listen to someone who has, that
> establishes a pattern which can carry right into the New Testament.
>
> Add that to our innate feelings of compassion for all people
> everywhere, and you have a watered-down gospel - acceptable to any
> shade of faith and all categories of unrepentant sinners.
>
> I argue hard for a literal Genesis illuminated by historical evidence
> not because it is important in and of itself, but because that too can
> establish a pattern of taking the entirety of Scripture at full face
> value.
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 10:58:43 EDT