RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 13:50:53 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Olson
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:40 AM
> >
> These is a loaded expression. Why would allegory or metaphor be
> considered a "falsehood to convey truth?" I'm really very confused
> about all this historical vs. metaphorical business. Allegory, when
> inspired by God, is just a "true" as historical narrative, IMHO.
>

I keep coming back to the fact that those who want Genesis 1 to be
allegorical don't want Genesis 1:1 to be allegorical. Indeed, Genesis
1:1 is propositional and it is either true history or it is totally
false. To me this is the heart of the inconsistency on the allegorical
side. Also there is no clear place where this account is identified as
allegorical. Jesus was said to tell parables which clearly identify the
genre. There is no statement like this in Genesis 1.
Received on Fri Sep 3 14:25:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 14:25:23 EDT