Re: Questions for Glenn & Howard

Howard commented, in part:

"Glenn can state his own assumptions as he wishes, but what he has said
on
this list over the years leads me to believe that he assumes the
following:
that the information content of the Bible (something that we should be
able
to discern with some serious effort at responsible and well-informed
interpretation) was communicated directly by God to the Bible's numerous
human writers over a thousand-year period, thereby giving the Bible
factual
accuracy and divine authority unequalled by any other human literature.

My own description of the Bible is quite different. I value and accept
the
Bible as a collection of thoroughly human accounts (specifically the
ancient
Hebrew and early Christian accounts) of the authentic human experience of
the presence of the Sacred (God). As such, the Bible should not be
expected
to be infallible, inerrant or even totally consistent. Neither should its
portrait of God be expected to be faultless or complete."

I am not terribly comfortable with either of these options; I probably
would tend more towards the first if these were the only two; yet I would
agree with Howard's last two sentences. But I think there is a middle
ground. The link below points to one with which I have resonance.
                  
jb
                                                                       
www.burgy.50megs.com/davis.htm

________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Wed Oct 13 19:15:26 2004