Walter Hicks wrote:
> george murphy wrote:
>
> > My purpose here wasn't to deny that Abraham might be an historical character
> > but simply to say that evaluating his possible place in history is a quite different
> > matter from such an evaluation for Jesus & other NT figures. To note just one thing -
> > some of Paul's letters were written down within ~20 years of the end of Jesus' ministry
> > & the synoptic gospels were written within the lifetimes of some people who would have
> > seen & heard Jesus. OTOH the stories we have about Abraham in Genesis were written
> > down, in the form that we have them, at least several centuries after Abraham now
> > lived. In other words, we have writings by Jesus' contemporaries & near-contemporaries
> > speaking of him as a real person who was crucified by a Roman governor whom we know
> > about from extra-biblical sources. We have nothing comparable with this for Abraham.
> >
>
> If I may sneak in one last question before departing:
>
> I thought I recalled that you were an advocate of Biblical inerrancy, though I may be
> wrong. Could you say where you stand on that subject and how it relates to the above
> comments?
>
> Thanks again for the insights you have provided.
I generally avoid the term "inerrancy" with regard to the Bible because people tend
to assume that it means that biblical texts are all true as accurate historical reports. I
believe that the Bible is true and authoritative. One then has to ask immediately what kind
of texts we're dealing with in the Bible. It's the failure to give serious consideration to
that question that is responsible for a great deal of the confusion about creation &
evolution, & other theological topics as well.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 14:44:23 EDT