In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 7:00:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net> writes:
> But nobody else is currently standing up for a
> Bible that contains anything more than a fable for Gen 1.
I think this statement illustrates what many of us see as the root of the problem. It is written as if the only two options are "only a fable" or "scientifically accurate history". There are more options!
How about:
"Inspired communication of vital truths about God and his relation to his creation, set in a form appropriate to the pre-scientific understanding of the day."
Surely such a view is "more than a fable." The problem comes in the view (which would have been totally alien to Moses) that truth communicated by story is somehow inferior to truth conveyed in scientific terms. Those with that view should remember how often Jesus taught in this "inferior" mode.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 13 2002 - 19:18:04 EST