glenn morton wrote:
.......................
> > > but you do reject MUCH historical evidence. You can't
> > > have a true book teach falsehoods. Period. And you keep saying it isn't
> > > teaching the whole truth. That is why you think I misrepresent your
> position
> > > because you give lip service to some parts of the history being actual
> fact
> >
> > To say that I "give lip service to some parts of the history being actual
> fact"
> > means that I don't really believe that the things I say are actual fact -
> such as the
> > crucifixion - are factual. I trust that you're just using the phrase "lip
> service" in a
> > sloppy way.
> Do you believe in Balaam's talking donkey, the floating ax-head? How about
> the waters parting at the Sea? Is that historical?. I know you think Jonah
> is a fish story and thus false, so we know that we can toss that one in my
> questions above.
You have completely missed the point. Your language - if it was being used
accurately ("lip service" means hypocrisy) - implied that I didn't really believe in the
historical accuracy of parts of Scripture that I said I did believe were accurate. What
is in order is an apology, not a smokescreen about Jonah.
> > But you practice your own selectivity with Gen.1. Your "days of
> proclamation"
> > view (which I don't consider a terrible interpretation in itself) is
> manifestly
> > non-historical.
>
> It makes it to be a real event that happened in history as viewed by God.
Calling this "historical" is a complete distortion of language.
> At least I don't have to say with embarrassement 'Oh gee, yeah, well I am
> stuck with that silly creation story here in the Bible. Pay no attention to
> it as it is merely to teach us theological truths which have no relationship
> to planet earth's history.'
> I at least would be honest enough to say it is false and I shouldn't teach
> it as conveying anything but a fable concocted by a middle eastern tribe of
> neolithic barbarians who knew nothing and that it was quite similar to
> thousands of other false creation myths taught by thousands of other
> primitive tribes.
Of course I've never described Genesis 1 as anything like this and would never
say that it was anything approaching "silly" or that it was "merely" historical truth.
But why should you believe my "lip service"?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 22:21:22 EDT