Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?

From: george murphy (
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 07:34:48 EDT

  • Next message: George Hammond: "Re: There's no 3-legged animal"

    Guy Blanchet wrote:

    > Mr. Jenkins,
    > I agree that none of us possess the raw power at the intellectual and wisdom level
    > to separate the entire contents of the Bible into what is historical and what is
    > non historical. It is very interesting how certain 'stories' rate so poorly on
    > the credibility scale, namely the Jonah fish story, and the sun-standing-still
    > story.

        As I pointed out previously, the question about the historicity of Jonah isn't
    simply whether or not one can believe that a big fish could have swallowed Jonah. The
    character of the whole book has to be considered and argues against it being
    historical narrative. The fish is a minor part of the story, merely a plot device to
    get the main character from point A to point B.
        Why this harping on the fish? It's easiest to rally the troops if those who don't
    think Jonah is historical narrative can be portrayed as those who don't believe that
    God could cause a big fish to swallow a man, thus as doubting God &c. But what God
    could do isn't the question.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Dialogue"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 07:34:26 EDT