Re: Descendants and Thomas Trap
David Campbell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:38:53 -0400
I think the problem Glenn is concerned with is "how do you tell what is
literal?" If anything that presents scientific or other difficulties in
the Bible is dismissed ad hoc as "non-literal", then your position is
unfalsifiable but not very convincing. However, if by studying the passage
in question, you find evidence that a metaphorical or other interpretation
is reasonable, then a lack of concern about the historicity can be
justified. For example, the repetition in Gen. 1, the flexibility of use
of the word "day", and the thematic approach all make me inclined to
believe that the original intent in writing it could have been figurative.
Truth can be conveyed by many means; however, it seems as though the author
should have some idea of the nature of the message. There are definite
exceptions (e.g., Jn. 11:50-51), though.