JW Burgeson wrote:
> Walt wrote, in part:
> "Anyhow, if is not history, then in my mind it is simply an _error_ --
> not a myth or theology."
> That position is not unusual among my fundementalist friends, of whom I have
> many. I think it is a dangerous view, for when it becomes apparent that the
> science & history of Gen 1-11 cannot be reconciled with factual knowledge,
> then many persons just toss Christianity over the side as a bad deal.
That's a mistake but one from which they will recover if their faith is
based upon more than the Bible. (A lot of Christians have survived
without the Bible.)
> " It is pretty clear that if you read Genesis backwards you are looking at
> what someone _thought_ was the history of mankind."
> I'd probably agree with this, with the quick comment that "history" to the
> ancient Hebrews is not to be equated with "history" to a 21st century mind.
Let me suggest that the 21st century mind is then using _external_
factors to force fit a theory into the Bible which was never intended by
the writers (and was therefore never looked upon as such _until_ the
> Again, I refer to the statement by my Native American friend.
> " If he was wrong, then the Bible in that area is simply wrong."
> Here I have to disagree. Jesus told the story of "the Good Samaritan." Would
> you say that if Jesus was wrong about him -- that he never existed, that the
> story never took place, then the Bible is wrong? I think not.
I would say that exactly proves my point. Never has anyone taken the
parables of Jesus to be anything other than parables. The NT writers
were very clear and specific about this. If Genesis 1-11 is similar, why
did the writers hide it so well?
> "...My inclination is to accept Genesis for what most people think that it
> is -- history. If I become convinced that it is mythology (and it sure
> doesn't look like it me), then I'll just stop paying any attention to it."
> That would be a shame. Gen 1-11 has a message to tell. It is just that
> history is not part of that message.
Then why did the writers have this long list of "begats" and why did
Luke cite them and why did Paul look upon Adam as a real person? BWe do
agree that Genesis has a great message to tell. We just see a different
So be it.
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 04 2002 - 15:15:56 EDT