On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:25:27 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[..]
>>GM>...if Genesis isn't historically true, then it can't be God's word...
>SJ>If "historically true" means *literally* "historically true", eg. as
>>in a newspaper report, then I ask, "Why not?" The Bible specifically
>>says that God's word can be and was given "in various ways":
>[snip]
>>A more flexible approach is therefore called for.
GM>I didn't say "literally historical true." I said "historically true".
>There must be a factual basis for the events in Genesis. That is all I
>mean. If Genesis is made up of whole cloth, then it isn't true. One can
>then choose to interpret the bible as literally or not as literally as they
>want after that. If there was no Noah or no Adam, then I think we have a
>problem even if others don't. I prefer personally to make it as literal as
>possible but I am willing to realise that my interpretation may not be the
>correct one.
Thank you for this clarification. I agree with you that "there must be a
factual basis for the events in Genesis." However, I am not as insistent
as you that "factual" means "literal."
The old saying that "a picture tells a thousand words" holds for
word-pitures too!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------