After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
John,
The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of
the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least
partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is
literal.
I appreciate your experience. Just don't think it's such a black and white issue.
We've been told in a number of places in the scriptures that we don't know
everything yet, and may have to exercise patience. In the meantime, we are free
to compare speculations, so long as we do not harm the faith
At 09:39 AM 11/7/2002, Jim cogently stated:
Seems to me that the contention in this discussion is mostly based on
semantic quibbling.
We're talking about written records of history. Every incident and
story related in these records is entirely symbolic. The words and
letters that comprise a
This is a very interesting comment,a nd sheds a lot of light on the subject at
hand. We often try to read in our own modern, secular ideas of what *we* want the
truth to be, rather than letting the record speak for itself, and we're often
inconsistent. I have on my website a transcript of a talk
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
Stacy.
At 09:45 PM 11/07/2002 +, you wrote:
This discussion by Stephen Robinson applies with equal validity to
questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible...
Naturalistic
Stacy Smith wrote:
---
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
---
Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink
collection.
ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?
by Stephen E. Robinson
Bookcraft
Salt Lake City, Utah 1991
Jim Cobabe wrote:
Stacy Smith wrote:
---
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
---
Robinson has written three books that are included on my GospeLink
collection.
ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?
by Stephen E. Robinson
Do we have any of these in immediate electronic form I could look at on a
web site?
Stacy.
At 08:35 PM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Jim Cobabe wrote:
Stacy Smith wrote:
---
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
---
Thanks.
Stacy.
At 07:49 PM 11/07/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
I would like a listing of Steven E. Robinson's books so I might buy
them. This one sounds interesting.
/
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a
result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot
Dan, put another way, the difference between us and Biblicists is that they
believe the Bible to *be* the word of God in an existential, substantive, an und
für sich (in and of itself) sense, whereas we believe it is a *record* of the
word of God, to be preached from, and interpreted by prophets.
John,
The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of
the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least
partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is
literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any scripture is
historically
Gary Smith wrote:
John,
The difference is that we have many GAs who have told us that portions of
the Bible ARE symbolic. That leaves the Bible's historicity at least
partially in question. Meanwhile, they have all told us that the BoM is
literal. Signaturi don't want to believe that any
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the
spiritual understanding behind the events told about.
- Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the
direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the
scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of
Mormon
deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a
result
of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that
16 matches
Mail list logo
