Subject: Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
Bible Note: dschaertel: Let's see if what you write is what I read: You seem to be saying that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis is a parable, a fictional account comparable to the stories of Santa Claus and George Washington and the cherry tree (you forgot to include the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy). But, following the same line of reasoning, why can't we expand the Garden of Eden story just a bit? If it is only a parable, why must we assume that the events that came before it and after it are not parables too? Let's just proceed on the premise that the Bible is a series of little parables designed to teach us lessons about a large number of things. Why not? Your reasoning gives us license to do that. We then would have added to our literary heritage a new book, the Bible, to be placed on the libary shelf alongside other fairy-tale classics such as the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen. We might even include Aesop's Fables in our collection. The gospel accounts made it clear when Jesus used parables. The Genesis narrative clearly does not. So by what measure does one separate in Genesis plain narration of real events from fictional stories? If you happen to have the key to this perplexing little problem, where did you get it? --Hank |