>From: Shuan Rose [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:12 PM
>To: Glenn Morton; email@example.com
>Subject: RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology
>Sorry for ruffling YOUR feathers. I let my sarcasm get away with me... I
>guess that I am just tired of people pinning the liberal(read: apostate)
>label on me for not accepting a historical reading of Genesis
>1-11.Sometimes I feel we should just forget the whole thing and start
>reading the Bible at Genesis 12.
Shuan, You didn't ruffle my feathers. I was curious as to why the sudden
change. Can my feathers be ruffled? YEs, those who have seen me for years
and years here know that they can. Did you do it? Not even in the slightest.
>For the record, I believe that there is a great deal of historical
> truth in
>the bible. I don't think we can read EVERYTHING as historical or literal.
>Jonah, Job, and Daniel 6-12, for example, are not meant to be taken
>literally or historically, in my mind. Gen 1-11 is closer to these forms of
>literature than, for example, Gen 12-50.And the Bible can be wrong
>scientifically(Lev 19:11) and historically( The succession of Persian kings
>We simply can't take the view that all types of literature in the Bible can
>be interpreted one way, IMO.And the Bible is not a history book,science
>book, or book of metaphysics. But you know this.
I agree with this last paragraph. No problem. We disagree on WHICH parts
must or must not be taken as historical (not literal). That last quote of
Hume is the best representation of my position. I apply tht standard to the
Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy's book whose title escapes me now, the
Koran, and the Bible itself. I see nothing wrong with Hume's approach.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 11:07:33 EDT