From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 09:34:35 EST
george murphy wrote:
>
>
> When you say "You would expect that the Bible should specify the exact chemical
> composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to," you are showing the fundamental
> confusion that besets so much popular discussion of the Bible: That the only way it can claim
> to be true is if it claims to be an accurate historical or scientific account. That is not
> true. But this is not, as you further say "just a hokey way to turn everything into a non
> literal interpretation." There are some parts of scripture which _are_ to be read as
> historical narratives.
O.K. But we are talking about a specific verse, so let us not get lost in a larger question.
If (unlike you) I happen to believe that the story of Adam is intended to be history (for a number
of reasons), then am I absolutely forced to think that Adam was a dust man? Am I allowed to
believe that he was simply made of the elements of earth (which happens to be a true description
of man)? Is the only alternative to be absolutely, 100% literal?
Maybe the reason it did not rain, as Vernon says, is because it would turn Adam into mud ;)
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 09:38:16 EST