Re: The Flood Hoax

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:02:08 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:12:57 EDT