|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 1:50:15 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
What if it seems to some people that astronomical bodies, such as the earth itself, formed before organisms on it? Would it not be worth considering the details of what has led them to think this? If God made the Universe intelligible, don't you think we ought to look at various apparent facts and decide whether they might be true on an objective level? Such as, as if it appears that the earth is 4 billion or however many years old while in fact it is relatively much younger, what intelligible facts have geologists been missing to get it wrong? What went wrong? Obviously, there does not have to be any sense in lies -- but couldn't one find the NONSENSE if one looked, that is, in an objective way. As in: if teh devil is in the details, then he can be discovered there, and his lies contradicted there, also.
Also, I am curious and will have to look in a moment whether the two accounts of creation in Genesis exhibit the same chronological sequence of events.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 2:07:00 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
This is not so much a difficulty in reconciling this interpretation of Genesis with evolutionary theory as it is a difficulty in reconciling this interpretation of Genesis with astronomy, physics, geology, palaeontology and biology.
Could you expound on that? It sounds like what you're saying is that my sentence was worded incorrectly, and you're not going to reply to what I said because of it.
I'm just saying that evolution is not the only scientific theory or discipline that contradicts your reading of Genesis. Indeed, the facts you pointed out have very little to do with evolution per se.
Astronomers have determined that many stars existed before the earth (and necessarily before any plants).
Geologists have determined that certain geological formations came to be in processes requiring millions of years or longer.
Physicists have developed dating tools that set the age of the earth in the billions of years.
Palaeontologists discover flowering plants only in layers that are far younger than those of the oldest land animals.
All four disciplines twine together in a consistent view of the age of the earth, and this age is in the range of billions of years.
I just wanted to point out that if you slew evolution, this would not resolve the discrepancies you note. To adopt a young earth position requires the elimination of most of the sciences.
I agree with you that a very literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with these sciences. So much the worse for a very literal interpretation. However, this does not mean that Genesis and science cannot be reconciled -- it simply requires a less literal interpretation. As an outsider, I wouldn't presume to offer an interpretation, but some of your coreligionists have explained their views.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 3:58:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Of course they are clearly described. Just as Jesus clearly describes God making humans during creation week.
Because, of course, he is referring to the story in the Mosaic text.
quote:
the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 demonstrates that the description is historical narrative.
How does it demonstrate this?
quote:
Just as the genre of Jesus' reiteration of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 indicates that He considered this to be historical fact. Why do you doubt Jesus' exegesis?
How do they indicate the exegesis you are assuming?
quote:
What makes you think a mythical representation cannot clearly and truthfully describe creation within the textual framework of a myth? What makes you think that "male and female" are scientifically real terms, but "the Creator made" and "at the beginning" are mere allegory, spoken by Jesus in the very same sentence? You really cannot see your inconsistency, can you gluadys?
Why do you refer to allegory as "mere allegory"? Is truth devalued by being presented in allegorical terms?
And, by the way, I do not consider either of the phrases you quoted to be any less factual than sexual distinctions in humans.
quote:
"myth" as a literary form does not mean "false" "deceptive" or "worthless". Myth is fiction; Biblical history is fact!
And Biblical myth is myth, just as Biblical poetry is poetry and Biblical parables are parables and Biblical allegories are allegories.
You don't need to prove that Biblical history is history/act. You need to show that the creation accounts are a history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 4:39:51 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
You need to show that the creation accounts are a history. One last time, gluadys, Genesis 1-11 is written in the identical literary genre as Genesis 12-50. It is you who have the burden of proving these chapters to be other than chronological history.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 4:56:28 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I'm just saying that evolution is not the only scientific theory or discipline that contradicts your reading of Genesis. Indeed, the facts you pointed out have very little to do with evolution per se.
Astronomers have determined that many stars existed before the earth (and necessarily before any plants).
Geologists have determined that certain geological formations came to be in processes requiring millions of years or longer.
Physicists have developed dating tools that set the age of the earth in the billions of years.
Palaeontologists discover flowering plants only in layers that are far younger than those of the oldest land animals.
All four disciplines twine together in a consistent view of the age of the earth, and this age is in the range of billions of years.
I just wanted to point out that if you slew evolution, this would not resolve the discrepancies you note. To adopt a young earth position requires the elimination of most of the sciences.
I agree with you that a very literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with these sciences. So much the worse for a very literal interpretation. However, this does not mean that Genesis and science cannot be reconciled -- it simply requires a less literal interpretation. As an outsider, I wouldn't presume to offer an interpretation, but some of your coreligionists have explained their views.
Very well said, ES. Of course, we could spend a year and a half going over all the sciences and never get anywhere. The Genesis account of history is presented as a sequence of events, divided into a certain number of days, separated by evening and morning, concluded by a day of no creation. In order for the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme to be considered true, one would have to deny:
The events: they weren't created, they evolved
The sequence: ordered from star to planet, simple to complex
The number of days: it was a 20 gazillion years, not 6 days
The separation of days: They cosmic bodies and animals co-evolved or -formed, the earth is not necessarily older than or younger than the stars since more stars are created, and plants are not necessarily older than animals since they are all co-evolved.
The conclusion of creation: the uniformitarian principle is that the things that are going on now are the same as they've always been. Creation is not over, it's continuing. The forces that brought about life are continuing on
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 5:25:41 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together.
If the events of the story of the Good Samaritan did not actually occur, would you "reject it all together"?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 5:45:48 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
The separation of days: They cosmic bodies and animals co-evolved or -formed, the earth is not necessarily older than or younger than the stars since more stars are created, and plants are not necessarily older than animals since they are all co-evolved.
Would you contend perhaps that everything (or approximately -- grant this for the sake of discussion if you will) is as it apparently is to science, only that the processes revealed by the inductive method took place within a single day of Creation, for example? That is, if evolution appears to be so, and it appears that bacteria may have given rise to more complex forms of life -- this MAY be true, but that it took place in a "sped up" fashion as far as we are concerned; that is, all processes, such as radioactive decay, by which dating is referenced, were also sped up during that day.
I think that is an interesting and actually tenable view. Ludicrous to some, but... What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 5:58:47 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I'm just saying that evolution is not the only scientific theory or discipline that contradicts your reading of Genesis. Indeed, the facts you pointed out have very little to do with evolution per se.
Astronomers have determined that many stars existed before the earth (and necessarily before any plants).
Geologists have determined that certain geological formations came to be in processes requiring millions of years or longer.
Physicists have developed dating tools that set the age of the earth in the billions of years.
Palaeontologists discover flowering plants only in layers that are far younger than those of the oldest land animals.
All four disciplines twine together in a consistent view of the age of the earth, and this age is in the range of billions of years.
I just wanted to point out that if you slew evolution, this would not resolve the discrepancies you note. To adopt a young earth position requires the elimination of most of the sciences.
I agree with you that a very literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with these sciences. So much the worse for a very literal interpretation. However, this does not mean that Genesis and science cannot be reconciled -- it simply requires a less literal interpretation. As an outsider, I wouldn't presume to offer an interpretation, but some of your coreligionists have explained their views.
Very well said, ES. Of course, we could spend a year and a half going over all the sciences and never get anywhere. The Genesis account of history is presented as a sequence of events, divided into a certain number of days, separated by evening and morning, concluded by a day of no creation. In order for the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme to be considered true, one would have to deny:
The events: they weren't created, they evolved
The sequence: ordered from star to planet, simple to complex
The number of days: it was a 20 gazillion years, not 6 days
The separation of days: They cosmic bodies and animals co-evolved or -formed, the earth is not necessarily older than or younger than the stars since more stars are created, and plants are not necessarily older than animals since they are all co-evolved.
The conclusion of creation: the uniformitarian principle is that the things that are going on now are the same as they've always been. Creation is not over, it's continuing. The forces that brought about life are continuing on
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
So on what grounds do you dismiss the many historical and renowned christian scholars throughout the centuries who have said just that? The creation is mythological and allegorical in nature?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 6:59:26 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Good Doctor, let's not forget that it just wasn't any plants that were created in verse 12, it was flowering plants, angiosperms. The first "plants" were supposed to have evolved around the same time as vertebrates crept onto land, 400ish million years ago. Angiosperms didn't follow until long after (150ish million years ago). I'm not sure whether uniformitarianism or the Theory of Evolution allows for the sun, moon, and stars forming after angiosperms. Perhaps during the Pliocene. Regardless, there is no reconciling the first chapter of Genesis with evolution theory as it currently stands.
This is not so much a difficulty in reconciling this interpretation of Genesis with evolutionary theory as it is a difficulty in reconciling this interpretation of Genesis with astronomy, physics, geology, palaeontology and biology.
Could you expound on that? It sounds like what you're saying is that my sentence was worded incorrectly, and you're not going to reply to what I said because of it.
I think es is just pointing out that it's not only evolution theory that a literal interpretation must contradict, but most of the other theories as well. Evolution theory has holes and is necessarily complicated by the fact that it's very difficult to observe due to the massive timescales involved, so evolution theory is the one YECs pick on. But the reality is that other disciplines such as astronomy (e.g. star distance and movement), physics (e.g. radio-activity and dating) and geology (e.g. plate tectonics) are more strongly supported than evolution theory, and are therefore much more difficult to argue from a YEC viewpoint. Presumably this is why YECs focus on evolution theory, since its gaps give YECs a fighting chance.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 7:26:11 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
And, by the way, I do not consider either of the phrases you quoted to be any less factual than sexual distinctions in humans.
Hey! What do you mean by this?
You mean gender distinctions? How very postmodern of you! (Just picking.)
But, still, huh?  (The red cheeks indicate embarrassment as does my nervous sarcastic jab about post-modernism :)
No, I mean sexual distinctions. I don't know why the term should embarrass or upset you. Gender, properly speaking, is a grammatical category in spite of its common use to replace "sex".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 7:36:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You need to show that the creation accounts are a history. One last time, gluadys, Genesis 1-11 is written in the identical literary genre as Genesis 12-50. It is you who have the burden of proving these chapters to be other than chronological history.
And I suppose you think that Genesis 12-50 is written in only one literary genre? Genesis 12-50 is certainly closer to history. The named individuals may even be historical--though we cannot verify that. The setting is reasonably historical. But a grounding in history does not mean the story is history. We have all sorts of examples of stories about historical people and historical events that are stories, not histories. Genesis is a good example of some of these.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 7:41:19 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Are you saying that a myth is to be rejected because it is a myth? Is it beyond possibility to you that God would inspire the biblical writers to produce a creation myth for the Hebrew people?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 7:45:59 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
gluadys,
Allow me to pass over with some anxiety several of those superfluous points that I introduced and again just ask what I am interested in: What do you mean about sexual distinctions not being factual? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.
thanks, I am interested to know!
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/18/2008 8:25:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 9:45:04 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Do you need to deny the book "Animal Farm" in order to believe that pigs don't talk? Or are myths and allegories a legitimate way of conveying truth?
It is hard for me to understand why creationists have such a hard time finding truth in myths and allegories.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 10:02:44 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
gluadys,
Allow me to pass over with some anxiety several of those superfluous points that I introduced and again just ask what I am interested in: What do you mean about sexual distinctions not being factual? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.
thanks, I am interested to know!
And not a claim I made. I was responding to this question from drmark:
quote:
What makes you think that "male and female" are scientifically real terms, but "the Creator made" and "at the beginning" are mere allegory,
I replied that , contrary to his perception, I do not consider the phrases "the Creator made" and "at the beginning" to be allegory. Rather I not consider them any less factual than "male and "female"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/18/2008 10:31:48 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
The named individuals may even be historical--though we cannot verify that. We cannot verify that? Do you even own a Bible, gluadys? Let's go through the NT references to the named historical individuals I so easily found:
Noah - 8
Abraham - 77
Sarah - 4
Lot - 4
Isaac - 19
Jacob - 21
Joseph - 8
Frankly, gluadys, I'm more than disappoointed by your careless handling of God's Word. I think it best that I stop responding to such misinformed bald-faced assertions so no one gets the idea that they merit any further respect.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 1:49:56 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The named individuals may even be historical--though we cannot verify that. We cannot verify that? Do you even own a Bible, gluadys? Let's go through the NT references to the named historical individuals I so easily found:
Noah - 8
Abraham - 77
Sarah - 4
Lot - 4
Isaac - 19
Jacob - 21
Joseph - 8
Frankly, gluadys, I'm more than disappoointed by your careless handling of God's Word. I think it best that I stop responding to such misinformed bald-faced assertions so no one gets the idea that they merit any further respect.
Sorry but NT references do nothing to verify the historical existence of the OT personnages. By "verify" I meant verify with physical archeological data such as an inscription or a reference in a text independent of scripture.
That is the test for historicity used of other writings. We don't claim that Romulus and Remus existed just because Virgil wrote of them. But if we had a Greek or Carthiginian reference to them independent of the Roman tradition, then we might reconsider a claim to historicity.
We have a very few verifications of some of the kings of Judah and Israel. And from the NT of Pontius Pilate and a few other Roman officials. Other than that, I don't think we have hard evidence of the historical existence of any biblical figure, including Jesus.
That doesn't mean they did not exist in real-time history. Only that we can't solidly verify that they did.
Furthermore, even when we do have solid verification of the existence of a person in history, it does not follow that a story about the person is history. Consider, for example, the well-known story of young George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Real person, but probably apocryphal story.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 9:43:08 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
gluadys,
gotcha. either I misread or you were unclear, dunno.
I was afraid I was gonna hear all kinds of peculiar postmodern arguments about how there is no actual distinction between genders, besides what is constructed by culture or self-constructed. And I use taht term because that is what they have chosen to differentiate from the obviously heterogeneous categories of sex.
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/19/2008 9:50:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 10:45:30 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
gluadys,
gotcha. either I misread or you were unclear, dunno.
I was afraid I was gonna hear all kinds of peculiar postmodern arguments about how there is no actual distinction between genders, besides what is constructed by culture or self-constructed. And I use taht term because that is what they have chosen to differentiate from the obviously heterogeneous categories of sex.
Well, when we look at the non-biological roles into which men and women are cast, there is a case for saying "gender" rather than "sex". "Gender roles" are social constructions that do not necessarily have anything to do with reproductive machinery. And I think it is valid to examine whether there is any logical reason to assign certain social roles and limitations in this way. Of course, women are more sensitive on this issue since we have been more subject to the limitation side of gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 11:13:00 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
No, I don't say its not valid work that the cultural theorists are doing. I agree gender is constructed, but maybe not 100%.
Truly, a human can choose anything for him or herself that s/he wants. But I think evoution is also a valid theory under which to investigate sex roles. I'm not saying "that" means "ought," but one could ask questions of how evolutionary exigency might affect sex roles and perhaps inform gender-role choices.
I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it either. It's just ambiguous, that's all. Can't say either/or or all or nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 1:02:46 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
So on what grounds do you dismiss the many historical and renowned christian scholars throughout the centuries who have said just that? The creation is mythological and allegorical in nature?
On the grounds that I have just stated. Though I would need to see a reference to someone calling the creation story a "myth" since the word implies that it is merely a story.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 1:06:44 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together.
If the events of the story of the Good Samaritan did not actually occur, would you "reject it all together"?
We're once again mixing two different genre's. Christ often told stories to present a spiritual lesson. It's not necessary for it to be true since the story was a parable. Parables, similes, and metaphores don't need to have actually happened.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 1:12:17 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
The separation of days: They cosmic bodies and animals co-evolved or -formed, the earth is not necessarily older than or younger than the stars since more stars are created, and plants are not necessarily older than animals since they are all co-evolved.
Would you contend perhaps that everything (or approximately -- grant this for the sake of discussion if you will) is as it apparently is to science, only that the processes revealed by the inductive method took place within a single day of Creation, for example? That is, if evolution appears to be so, and it appears that bacteria may have given rise to more complex forms of life -- this MAY be true, but that it took place in a "sped up" fashion as far as we are concerned; that is, all processes, such as radioactive decay, by which dating is referenced, were also sped up during that day.
I think that is an interesting and actually tenable view. Ludicrous to some, but... What do you think?
Well we still have the fact that the days are completely out of order. The sun was NOT formed after flowering plants in the uniformitarian view of history. That and we have no reason to believe that bacteria can give rise to new and novel structures and processes, so why would I want to try to fit something like that into the Bible? There is reason to believe that some things may have been "sped up", such as light getting to the earth from distant stars, so I think you might be right on that point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/19/2008 1:21:27 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Are you saying that a myth is to be rejected because it is a myth? Is it beyond possibility to you that God would inspire the biblical writers to produce a creation myth for the Hebrew people?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
The solution is not in reinterpreting the creation story, but rejecting it all together. If the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme is true, then the Creation story is a creation myth. We can't re-interpret it into the GUS without denying the story all together.
Do you need to deny the book "Animal Farm" in order to believe that pigs don't talk? Or are myths and allegories a legitimate way of conveying truth?
It is hard for me to understand why creationists have such a hard time finding truth in myths and allegories.
Since the word "myth" implies that it is not actually true, then I wouldn't think that it would be a legitimate way of conveying divinely inspired truth. I would agree that a spiritual lesson could be taught if the story was told in a way that people know that it is parabolic. Veggie Tails is a good example, and so are the stories of Christ. We have every reason to believe that the first chapter is history, just like we have every reason to believe that First and Second Kings is history. Inspired and accurate history. Since it is divinely inspired, a charge could conceivably be leveled against God for giving history that is untrue. If David never existed, then 1 and 2nd Samuel is a divinely inspired lie. I have philosophical objections to such a scenario.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 6/19/2008 1:29:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
