>If you feel that Genesis 1-11 is best interpreted as a historical
> narrative,
>fine. However, a text is not "untrue" simply because it is not literal,
>historical narrative. Genesis 1 does not read to me like a historical
>narrative, yet I still believe that it conveys a significant theological
>message which was appropriate for the culture in which it first appeared.
>I am certainly not going to call God a liar just because the account that
>I have is in a form different from what I would want.
and Keith Miller wrote:
>This statement indicates a persistent misconception within the evangelical
>community about scriptural exegesis. It seems to say "if it isn't literal
>(historical) then it isn't true."
First off, forget Genesis 1. God could snap his fingers and create the world.
My real interest is in Genesis 2-9 which most people view as non-historical
also.
In regard to these comments, let me point out that we simply have to have some
reason for believing that the Bible is saying something worthy of our
attention. On what basis do we believe that the events in the scripture are
important? Let me ask, Would we feel so certain about the "Truth" of the
Bible if every single historical event described on its pages was not
historical? No evidence of David. No evidence of ancient Israel. No
evidence that the Roman Empire controlled Israel in 33 A.D. No evidence of
the cities Paul visited. No evidence of Babylon, Ninevah, Assyria, or Egypt.
This would certainly make the Bible non-historical. Could it still be true?
Let me put this another way. Back in college before I became a Christian, I
briefly considered the claims of some Mormons who came to visit me. They gave
me a Book of Mormon and told me about all the great cities and battles which
were fought on this continent. I looked into the archaeological claims of
this book and frankly found very little evidence to support their contention
that a European type civilization existed on this continent prior to Columbus.
So in my opinion, the Book of Mormon, despite my brother-in-laws assertions
to the contrary, is not historical. So can it be true?
If the Bible can be nonhistorical and true, why can the same not be said of
the Book of Mormon?
I will try again to post what I put on T.O. since apparently due to problems
here at GNN, I neither got it back nor did it make it to the archive. It
will explain how I think the Scripture can be historical and fit with science.
glenn