Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Paul Seely'" <PHSeely@msn.com>; <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>; <Philtill@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Paul Seely
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:30 AM
...................
> >>>And he very inappropriately adds,"Frankly, I think the fact that you
> guys want the Bible to be factually
> false, means you won't go looking for alternative explanations. The
> intellectually easy thing to do is to say it is false and move on."
>
> No one on this list to my knowledge wants the Bible to be factually false.
> <<<
>
> Besides what you say, that I am being inappropriate (and I would add,
> nasty), I am amazed at your last sentence above. That must be why no one
> on
> this list is telling me that concordism is not to be sought for. Yeah
> right. I see everyone rushing to be a concordist to prove how factually
> true
> the Bible is. People have intellectual investment in it being factually
> false.
..........

Glenn -

Are you really unable to distinguish between "wanting" the Bible to be
factually false and being willing to accept that some parts of it are?
Whether you agree with the latter position or not, it is just not the same
as "wanting" falsity.

Paul, & I, & others who do not see the need for concordism, do not "want"
the Bible to be false. To say that we do is simply a violation of the
commandment against bearing false witness.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 07:09:25 2006