Subject: Revelation in the Gospels? |
Bible Note: Thanks for the reply - no criticism taken. And thanks for providing the link to the web site where you got the quote - it looks interesting and informative. Let me be clear on what I was suggesting (or not suggesting, perhaps.) I am NOT suggesting at all that Genesis 1:1 is not true - I believe that with all my heart. But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know. Creation exists in all its' glory - bite it, taste it, it's real. If you believe (and I do) that God is the responsible Fact behind creation, do you also have to believe that on the third day of creation, God created plants? I really don't think so. There are a couple of quotes by Dr. Gregory Boyd from Letters from a Skeptic that are appropriate, I think: "I see no reason why God would have to limit Himself to the genre of literal istory in revealing Himself to us. There is no reason why certain sections of Scripture could not contain some symbolic elements. If using teh literary genres of myth or allegory would better express the point God is trying to make, then what would prevent Him from using them? Nothing." "The idea that the Bible must be 100 percent literal if it is 100 percent inspired is a very recent, and quite misguided notion." These sum up what I was trying to express very well. In Him, Jim D. |