Re: Accuracy of the Bible

Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 10:10:07 EDT

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

    Jim Eisele writes:

    > 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
    > 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

    Here we go again. Some people, even now, but certainly in the past, had
    another idea of the meaning of "histotical" than you have, Jim. Thus
    argueing becomes totally irrelevant. I believe, that what God tells us in
    the Bible is "true", but apparently my idea of "truth" is different than
    your idea, which , I think, is a-historical. Consequently argueing becomes
    just that, and convincing becomes impossible, without your doing a great
    deal of studying.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 14:10:24 EDT