Paul Seeley wrote on Monday, July 08, 2002 3:52 PM
>I agree with you to the extent that if objective evidence falsified all of
>biblical history, we could not object to the claims of other religions as
>readily, and would need at the least to reexamine our own foundations. But,
>much of the OT history does stand (in spite of the minimalists), and the NT
>(which is much more our foundation than the Old) stands very well.
The only thing I want to ask is that in 6-8 months or more, when we get into
another discussion of historicity, remember this aspect of my belief system.
While you might believe the Bible until every last scrap of history is wrung
out of it, I wouldn't stay that long--indeed many wouldn't. The question we
really have been discussing is how much history is too little to believe the
Scripture and that is what gets me in trouble on this list. People forget
that I don't require everything to be historical but I do want a higher
ratio than you and indeed most on this list. What we are arguing about is
NOT whether there should be historicity, but how much.
Don't forget now.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 18:55:36 EDT