Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 09:28:26 EDT
Jim Eisele writes:
> Many on this list have claimed several "historical" parts of the
> Bible really are not historical.
> The purpose of this post is discussion, not "fighting."
> Let's leave aside the flood for now. There is way too much
> evidence for a real flood (local, covering hills, not mountains)
> for me to take counter-claims seriously.
> So, what is the best argument that the Bible contains false history?
> I'm not getting this whole Jonah thing. A God who can create the
> universe can easily keep someone alive inside a big fish.
> While we're at it, let's throw out any Bible passages that's
> historically "contradict" each other. After all, it's the weekend,
> and we all hopefully have a little extra time.
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
Before you start talking about "real history" you have to make sure to talk
about what kind of texts are "history" in a modern sense of the word, which
are history in the old "Hebrew way of thinking", and which may be
"parables." All texts in the Bible are "Word of God", but not all "history"
in the modern sense of the word. We can get into an unending discussion
again when we do not agree on these basic points. And we don't agree on
these points, I discovered. We all (at least most of us, and I do
definitely) accept the original writing as the Word of God as He gave it to
some writers. But then the difficulty and shouting starts again.
Jan de Koning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 11:01:43 EDT