From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 22:42:32 EST
George Murphy wrote:
>
> I'll repeat something that I said in an exchange here a few weeks ago. One
> should be a "biblical literalist" in the sense of taking the precise letters & words of
> scripture seriously.
How can one accept that, George? You would expect that the Bible should specify the exact
chemical composition of a man --- other wise it becomes an excuse to:
> But one should _not_ be one in the sense of assuming that all the
> texts of scripture are to be read as accurate historical narratives.
As the only alternative?
Sounds like a set-up to me ---- just a hokey way to turn everything into a non literal
interpretation.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 22:46:01 EST