Re: Accuracy of the Bible

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 17:38:14 EDT

  • Next message: Mccarrick Alan D CRPH: "Local section meeting"

    Jan writes

    >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."

    Personally, I find the Bible far more powerful and credible if the events
    mentioned therein actually occurred. Parables are obvious exceptions that
    get completely overblown by some.

    >All texts in the Bible are "Word of God", but not all "history"
    >in the modern sense of the word.

    It's amazing how many events the Jewish people considered real that we
    consider non-historical.

    >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.

    I'm realistic enough not to expect agreement. But, the stakes are high,
    and some will drop out along the way. My claim is that the Bible is
    historical until shown otherwise. The last thing in the world that I want
    is to be counted among those who obscured the historical truth of God's
    Word. Try supporting the historicity of key Biblical events. You'll find
    that the battle is real, and it is not about word games.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question
    http://genesisinquestion.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 02:46:46 EDT