Re: If Genesis isn't historically true, then it can't be God's
Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Sat, 09 May 1998 09:42:04 -0500At 09:13 PM 5/9/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>>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."
Steve, you didn't understand what I wrote. I didn't insist that factual
meant 'literal'. I said that I prefer to find as much literalness as
possible. There is a big difference between insisting on literalness and
wishing to find it.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm