[asa] RE: Bible veracity

Glenn Said:

I think you misunderstand. I don't want someone to go through line by line.
I think what I want is an acknowledgement that concordism is necessary or we
have very little except self-delusion.

Debbie replies:

Whose responsibility is it to acknowledge this?

And if they do say that they agree with you that concordism is necessary,
then you demand that they prove that it exists - when no proof is possible.

You seem to be angry when there is no acknowledgment, but also angry when
there is acknowledgement but no proof.

I have been amazed to find that the Catholics do not expect concordism, nor
do I get the impression that most Jewish leaders expect it. Nor do I get the
impression that most of the people on the list expect it. Atheists do.
Atheists spend hours and hours dissecting the Bible proving that what they
consider to be concordism does not exist.

I have been a teacher. I have taught people far less educated, less
intelligent and less experienced than I. I frequently use the 'repeat after
me in your own words' technique because I am also a parent. I have
frequently 'settled' for them getting the right idea, even if they had
certain 'facts' wrong. If you add something that has a magnitude of two to
something which has a magnitude of two do you get four? Maybe, maybe not.
You get something less than or equal to four. Do we hash this out in class?
Depends on the class. Now, this particular question would not be asked
unless it was to be hashed out - but there are others which parallel this
that come up surprisingly often. The 'truthful' answer would distract and
confuse the student. So, instead of 'technically the answer is not but...' I
have paused and answered 'yes' to such questions. Also, I have frequently
made up stupid little stories to illustrate points.

Aesop's fables are great. Did a fox really talk to some grapes? I think not.
But the story is culturally sound.

I'm listening to the new Teaching Company tape on Genesis. I'll let you know
if it touches on something that I think will be of value to you. The
introduction states that the book of Genesis is the greatest piece of
ancient literature there is.

I read a lot of historical fiction in my youth. It was an easier way to get
an idea of the times - and a far more moral one. Have you read any of
Dickens non-fiction? He wrote some true stuff that was pretty randy - I
couldn't finish it. Dickens fiction did a lot to change society. He is
credited with bringing Christmas back to England.

'Uncle Tom's Cabin' changed a lot of lives. How about '1984'?

I do not agree with you that the choice is between concordism and delusion.

History is not always cause and effect. It does not teach in a clear and
linear fashion. It is filled with all sorts of asides, and distractions that
are far from the point. Why did Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Genghis
Khan succeed? There are lessons to be learned from their lives and deaths -
but they aren't the best ones to teach us how to be perfected as human
beings.

The Bible is to teach us how to live. It doesn't have to agree with either
history or science in order to accomplish this.

-
>
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 23:45:05 2006