This will not be new to the theologians here, but a recent article in Bible
Review shows to me why historical accuracy is important, not only in Genesis
but also in the Gospels. Learn about the 34 different gospels at
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbBRFeature2.html
Particularly worrisome are things like:
"As early as the second century, both the reliability of the canonical
gospels and their portrayals of Jesus were under fire. For example, the
philosopher Celsus argued that a saying of Jesus quoted in Mark was actually
purloined from Plato's Laws (743A): "It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God"
(Mark 10:25).(7) Today, a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar has
attempted (in the face of great criticism by many scholars and clerics) to
determine the relative historical reliability of all early Christian
traditions about Jesus, both canonical and noncanonical."
While people have generally dismissed my quest for a historical (sort of)
Genesis, can they dismiss problems with the historical Jesus so easily? Can
it possibly be true to claim (as many would of Genesis) that like Genesis,
the Gospels don't have to conform to historical reality? How much of the
Bible can be non-historical and still have Christianity survive?
I will sit back ans see the comments and responses.
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 Jun 09 2002 - 15:26:00 EDT