From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:02:08 EDT
Jim wrote, in part: "I haven't read the book. But, I do believe in absolute
That's nice. So do I. But the attainment of it for anything non-trivial is
probably not within our grasp. So "believing" in it is OK as a faith
statement but one cannot DO anything with it. Much like "the originals were
inerrant." Neither statement seems (to me) to be useful in any particular
Jim continued: "Yet, I remain disturbed by any "hole-poking" of the Bible.
If you have big problems with certain parts of the Bible, that's one thing.
But, if you are only taking issue with "trivia" I am a bit confused. Are
you claiming inaccuracy in big parts, or "trivia"?
I am sorry you are "disturbed." I think it comes with the territory (of
always asking questions).
As to your last question, I suppose it depends upon what one calls a "big
part." For some, this means take the biblical flood without question as
literal history. It does not mean that for me. For some it means take
without question I Sam 15 where God is portrayed as commanding the slaughter
of infants as a literal depiction of God's character. That also, to me, is a
problematical section of scripture. Now I'd characterize both as "trivial,"
but I know some here will rise up in indignation and say otherwise. That's
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:12:57 EDT