Re: NT inerrancy??

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Thu Jan 01 2004 - 09:26:48 EST

Thanks for all the comments, Blake. Dispute your disclaimer, I consider
you and most others as far more astute about the Bible than I am. I
look upon myself as the theological mature. Since there often is much
disagreement, however, I feel entitled to sate an opinion.

"Dr. Blake Nelson" wrote:


> Especially when the end result is the same. If one
> wishes to prove that people can live inside particular
> fish for three days because Jonah says so, I would
> politely suggest to the person that that might miss
> the point of the whole story. ;)

In any bible study class that I ever attended the focus is upon the
spiritual message and what one can "take home". I cannot imagine anyone
discussing what kind of fish it was, but I guess that could happen as a
sideline. Should, however, someone say that Jonah is a theological
statement, and not a historical event, then they have started an issue
that did not exist before that statement is made.

In a protracted discussion on this list, I have engaged in discussions
about how how big Nineveh "really" was and how there are no fish big
enough, etc. Such discussions do not really add to the point of the
story. Better to just let the story to talk for itself, I think. Same I
think with Adam and Eve. From my very first reading of the first 2
chapters of genesis, I thought that the first was physical and nature
and the second was spiritual. Somehow the discussion of reality only
detracts from for the value of the reading -- IMHO

That is one reason why I'd like to focus some of the ASA discussion on
the NT and not be so concerned about the OT.


Walt Hicks <>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Thu Jan 1 09:27:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 09:27:55 EST