>Does ANYONE out there believe that the Bible does not require that there
>was a real flood or real tower of Babel? Is anyone willing to publically
>state that these chapters are non-historical?
I guess it is probably obvious to people who have been reading my posts
that I grew up in a tradition (Anglican) that holds that Scripture is
inspired and contains everything necessary for salvation, but leaves the
question of inerrancy to individual conscience (there are some Anglican
inerrantists). I hear in many people's notes a sense of puzzlement as to
how someone can submit to the authority of the Bible while holding that
parts are principally historical, parts historical and poetic, and parts
theology phrased as something near poetry. Maybe it's just that having
grown up doing this, the process of discernment is not disconcerting. I
suspect that I will get the comment back that without inerrancy too many
interpretations are possible; yet it seems to me that there are many who
post here who hold to inerrancy and still do not agree, so inerrancy does
not relieve the necessity for interpretation and discernment.
>to make theological points" without using the word "exaggerated", so as
>to maintain a high view of Scripture?
I don't know what you mean by "high"; is a view of Scripture as inspired
and sufficient for salvation high enough?