Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?

From: george murphy (
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 13:11:03 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"

    John W Burgeson wrote:

    > Vernon wrote: " I'm left wondering what you make of "I am the way, the
    > truth,
    > and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (Jn.14:6). "
    > Fair question. I take it at face value. I do NOT, however, see it as
    > saying "only Christians" will "come to the father." I think Jesus (God)
    > is bigger than that.
    > "Your mentioning Gosse's OMPHALOS is most appropriate at this time. From
    > my reading of the Scriptures, your suggestion that the concept of
    > 'apparent age' must, necessarily, imply divine deceit, is incorrect."
    > Interesting, because I argued just that point myself on this list about a
    > year ago, based on Gosse's thesis. Please take a look at the materials I
    > mentioned. I must admit I argued it more as "devil's advocate" than
    > because I really held the position; George Murphy (I think) was the one
    > that shot down my arguments most persuasively. (Not convincingly, George,
    > but almost so).

            In fairness to Gosse I ought to reiterate that 140 years ago one
    could reasonably argue that any
    mode of creation of the universe must result in artifacts having "apparent
    ages" that differe from their real ages. It's only developments of 20th
    century physics that have led us to understand (or to have good reason to
    believe we can understand) the development of planetary systems, stars,
    nuclei and atoms, and perhaps matter and space-time, that we can see that
    that's not necessary.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 13:10:48 EDT