Re: [asa] On Job

Don W has introduced a "slippery slope" argument. I consider such
arguments to be fallacious. Each passage in the Bible should be treated
on its merits --- and that means determining the genre of the passage
before one proceeds further with intepretation. If that means hard work
for the reader of the Bible, so be it.
Don N.

Don Winterstein wrote:

> Would you assign Jonah similar status? Then, how about Elijah calling
> down fire on the captains of fifty? Once we get started, how do we
> know where to stop?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Carol or John Burgeson <mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:37 AM
> *Subject:* [asa] On Job
>
> Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
> and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
> account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual
> consequences?
> =
> And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what
> might we
> =
> usefully glean from them?"
>
> The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality
> play.
> To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of like
> believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
>
> Burgy
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 4 16:47:23 2006