JW Burgeson wrote:
> Wally wrote (to George) "Just why is it any better to accept your
> interpretation that it is some sort of fable, allegory, or what ever name
> you want to give it."
> Reason 1. It makes the most logical sense
To you and George maybe. Not to me and some others.
> Reason 2. It is not in conflict with the Christian faith.
To you, but not to everybody.
> "You both agree that it is our Faith in Jesus Christ that mostly matters."
> Wrong. The word "mostly" in what you write is incorrect. It needs to be
> stricken forthwith. There is no middle position. Either trust in Christ is
> 100% or it is nothing.
Of course that is true. I failed to convey properly what I meant.
> "I personally prefer one that comes closer to real history than one which
> uses mythology."
> If push comes to shove, I do too. But I also prefer lots of things that did
> not and will not happen.
You miss the point or, more likely, you intentionally avoid it. If
Glenn, or somebody else, offers up a "historical" or "scientific"
explanation for something in the Bible ---- and it is consistent with
factual external evidence --- then I say it is to be preferred over the
myth, allegory or theological explanations. I cannot think of any reason
at all why it should not be.
A second point is that it is not clear why things should _not_ be
tentatively considered to be factual (historical) unless (and _only_
unless) either you, George or someone else can prove to the contrary.
That I say only because I believe that the Old Testament is inspired by
God for even simple (non theological) folks to read.
Let me take a shot a Genesis 1 for example. In that chapter the
following facts as best we know from science) are correctly listed.
1.) There was a beginning. (something only recently "discovered")
2.) One of first things that happened was light. (True in Big bang
3.) Creatures were "created" in a sequence that started with the simpler
ones and getting more complex until man. (known as fact only since
evolutionary data has been gathered._
When I was a little kid, I thought ("observed" with my eyes) that the
earth was flat and that the sky was a bowl shaped object over the earth.
I surmised that rain somehow or other was water from the sky located
somewhere up there. Those were simple observations. I was far to young
to have any scientific theories -- or even know what science was. When
my father told me that the earth was round, I did not believe him. I
showed him with a rubber ball, that people could only live on one side
of a ball without falling off. (He was not impressed but had no counter
Although my childlike observations of my environment were the same as
ancient man, I would not have guessed the above 3 items. For ancient men
to have the same "observations" and get the insights of Genesis 1 is
more than just amazing to me. I cannot accept the myth, allegory,
theology story. Sorry guys.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 12:57:37 EDT