I think your list contains false choices. For an explanation of the difference
between secular and sacred histories, I suggest:
Your questions seem to me to proceed from the false assumption that narrative
accounts are to be read in the same manner as modern historical narrative is to be
read. But that mode of thinking was unknown to Semitic peoples. It was invented by
Herodotus, a Greek, in 500 BC.
Stacy Smith wrote:
> Then we must ask ourselves if the Biblical accounts are a. Only
> allegories. B. Lies. C. Half and half. D. Half truth, half error. If
> they are erroneous our faith is in vain. For if God did not intervene in
> the affairs of man, our faith is vain. If Christ be not raised, etc.
> At 11:33 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote:
> >After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> >>People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious
> >>that it has
> >>to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but
> >>there's a
> >>lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came
> >>tumbling down.
> >>It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said
> >>they did,
> >>but so what? That's not the point.
> >I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It
> >also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible
> >for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if
> >the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we
> >shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously
> >either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech.
> >I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
> >we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
> >true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism,
> >doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as
> >I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the
> >literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a
> >figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation
> >of the human past?
> >John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >"Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described
> >intellectuals" --Uncle Bob
> >All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
> >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002
> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we don’t want
a world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///