02-02-2008, 03:28 PM
|
| Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by etexas  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by etexas OK, from your argument, what if I said :Well,Genesis is not that clear, perhaps the Gospels are not either. Perhaps they need a "touch" of Higher Criticism to bring out just the basic elements o Truth. | This is my point exactly etexas; if someone can say the history of Genesis 1-3 is not literal, then what is to stop then from saying that the historical accounts of the virgin birth and resurrection are not literal either. I am not saying that everyone who takes a non-literal view of Genesis 1 would go down that road, but it is difficult to what logical barrier there is to this. | Yes, it would be hard to avoid such thinking! I mean the 4 Gospels are not always "clear", does this give me the right to reinterpret? I see no "diff" with Genesis, but hey, if someone wants to mangle the Bible, why not start at the first book!  | As the psalmist said: "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|