From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 13:29:07 EST
George Murphy wrote:
> Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Until you are willing to give some serious consideration to the larger question
> (i.e., how scripture is to be read and interpreted), your discussion of specific texts
> will be of little value.
O.K. Educate me.
But at the same time be certain to explain why not everybody agrees with your notion that the authors'
intended (and I emphasize INTENDED by the authors) that the first parts of the Bible should not be
read as actual history. I think that your position comes about solely because of recent scientific
issues. Show me to the contrary.
Walt
>
>
> Shalom,
> George
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
-- =================================== 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 - 13:35:32 EST