Re: Accepting Genesis 1 as scientific truth

Gary Collins (etlgycs@etluk.ericsson.se)
Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:07:30 +0100 (BST)

Vernon wrote, amongst other things:
>
> VJ: The example you provide is one of historical detail and, I suggest,
> should present no problem to the discerning reader. By falsely claiming
> to have delivered Saul the coup de grace, the Amalekite clearly expected
> thanks and favourable treatment from David. The truth of the matter is
> told in the events of 1Sam.31:3-6, to which the young man was probably a
> witness. I would be interested to see one or two other examples from the
> 'plenty of passages' you claim cause problems.
>

Here's one that might be a bit of a headache :-)

A plain reading of Matthew's account suggests that Bethlehem
was Mary and Joseph's home before the flight to Egypt, and that they only
went to live in Nazareth because they heard that Archelaus was ruling in
place of Herod. However, in Luke's account Nazareth was the original home
and they only went to Bethlehem because of the census which required Joseph
to go to the town of his birth.

Which is the 'true' account?
(There are several differences between the two accounts of the Christmas story
which seem to me to be difficult to reconcile.)

In the Gosples, Judas went and hanged himself. The priests used the money
which he had returned to buy a field (for burials? I can't remember the
intended use right now) and that is why it became known as the field of blood.
In Acts, Judas himself bought the field with the betrayal money, and when
he entered it he fell haedlong and his guts spilled out, and that is why it
became known as the field of blood.

Which is the 'true' account?

I am sure there are several other such examples that could be given.

regards,
/Gary