"And the more liberal branch
of Christianity would rather believe that the Scripture is unhistorical
or
untrue whenever the observational data goes against an interpretation of
scripture. Both approaches to this issue makes the Bible questionable as
far as its ability to relate truth. I will only applaud when
conservative
Christians cease running from observation, and liberal christians cease
surrendering historicity in what should be the word of God. "
Just a comment, Glenn, from the "liberal" side (I guess I qualify). I
think you do not, in the above, give us proper credit. The Word is the
Word whether (or not) it is "historical." Our interpretations are, all of
them, fallible.
I have no particular problem with an interpretation that holds the first
part of Genesis unhistorical. That does not mean that it is, or is not,
of course, just that that particular "issue" is too far down the
importance list to really lose sleep over. To research it, as I have
done a lot (I like your two books, even though I don't buy into (or
disbelieve either) their thesis). They play almost no part, however, in
my own Christian faith journey, one which continually expands every week
into new and exciting (and origins-unrelated) areas. The message of my
Lord was "love each other," not "hold to a proper view of origins," or
even "hold to a proper view of the Bible."
If someone digs up Noah's bones, I will be delighted. If someone
demonstrates evidence that Noah is a myth, it will not be traumatic to
me. Frankly, I think he was (is) a real person, but that "think" is not
particularly related to my relationship with my Lord and your Lord.
Burgy
May you love the Lord so much, that you love nothing else too much.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]