-----Original Message-----
>From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
>Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 4:23 AM
>Just for the record I believe the Flood occurred as a Mesopotamian
>flood, a
>real historical event in real history; but, the Bible writes it up as a
>universal event probably because that is the way it was described
>from as far
>back as we have a record, i.e., the Sumerian account.
Great. If this is true, I can conclude only one thing. Someone who wrote
that part of the Bible fibbed! They took a local flood and exaggerated out
the wadzoo and now we are expected to see great theological truths in a
falsified account. Clifford Irving wrote a falsified will for Howard Hughes
(late of Texas, Mexico, Las Vegas). Are we supposed to see great theological
meaning in that falsified will? Or more to the point, what about the false
Hitler diaries for which the magazine Stern paid $3.8 million. They account
I read of this said,
"In their zeal to publish the scoop, Stern overlooked a host of historical
inaccuracies that riddled the diaries, and they failed to run even the most
basic authentication tests." http://infoplease.lycos.com/spot/hoax6.html
We Christians, in our zeal to believe, fail to run the most simple
authentication tests.
While perhaps few will agree with me, it really seems odd that so many
will believe that the story has worth, and was inspried by God, when they
also believe that the tale isn't true. By this logic, Hitler's diaries have
much to teach us for they are truly worth a lot.
How did the ark go
>north? That is just a part of the way flood stories are written: the ark
>always lands on a high mountain in the vicinity of the
>story-teller. Gen 1-11
>is not VCR history; but, that does not mean it has no historical value.
To paraphrase:
Why can't we physically see the risen Lord today? That is jut a part of the
way resurrection stories are written: the resurectee always goes away after
a short time, often from a place in the vicinity of the story-teller. Luke
24 is not a VCR history; but that does not mean it has no historical value.
One can apply such logic to anything and the beauty of it is, one never has
to say one's views are false.
>As George mentioned there are a number of archaeological finds
>which tend to
>verify the Bible.
But they don't verify anything of significance to the metaphysical claims of
the Scripture. THe fact that DAvid lived and that there were Babylonians,
does nothing to support the claim that David talked to God and was a man
after God's own heart.
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 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 05:26:33 EST