In a message dated Thu, 14 Mar 2002 3:45:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net> writes:
> Allan, my position on the Bible is "Strong until proven weak."
> Why settle for a watered-down version if something more solid
> is available?
Which returns us to the underlying problem. Why, if God communicates truth using figurative language, is that "watered down" and "weak"? Why do you think Scripture has to communicate truth scientifically in order to be "solid" and "strong"? I submit that this attitude is unbiblical and would have been nonsense to Moses (and should be nonsense to us if we weren't warped by fallen 20th-century modernity). Think about it, you are saying Jesus chose weak and watered-down methods to teach.
I think this will be my last contribution on this thread, as it seems to be going nowhere.
My final thought is that we must avoid classifying different forms of communicating truth in Scripture as "weak" or "strong." As the Scriptures show, God often confounds our human ideas of what is weak and what is strong.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 17:09:10 EST