Re: Accuracy of the Bible

Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 09:28:26 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Did Peter walk on water?"

    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