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 based. We believe all of the BoM is, and much (if not most)
of the Bible is.  Marc and I are consistent with what the GAs have taught
on these books. We haven't stated definitively that Joshua never was at
Jericho, but only that there are discrepancies with current science. This
allows all to look at the evidence and make up their own mind with all
the current facts.  I don't ask anyone to stop believing in the Global
Flood or Jericho's walls. I only ask them to consider other ways of
interpreting a book that we have been told has symbolism in some of its

K'aya K'ama,
Gerald/gary  Smith    gszion1    http://www
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."  -
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

JWR:I didn't say anything about Signaturi.  I don't think you or anyone
else on 
this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago.  But
suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because 
one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the 
Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. 
to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate.  They try to 
straddle a fence that is a razor blade.  If they can't explain it in 
scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it 
doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated.

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to