To: PatrickHenry
I just thought of this, as an appendix and tangential addendum:
A story may be entirely non-factual, yet remain utterly true.
Case in point: no one believes that animals speak or behave as they are presented in Aesop's Fables, but does that have any impact whatsoever on the essential truth of those stories?
Perhaps the apparent disparity between Genesis and more verifiable records is along those lines - God may hve been more interested in imparting His Truth to Man, rather than cramming our heads full of rote memorization of abstruse facts.
Assuming, for the argument: God; God's involvement with Man; God's ultimate authorship of Genesis - none of which are demonstrable.
233 posted on
09/03/2003 3:10:06 PM PDT by
King Prout
(people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
To: King Prout
A story may be entirely non-factual, yet remain utterly true. Sure. Most of the science crowd take that approach. But there are those who don't, thus the endless conflicts we encounter in the evolution threads. It's just the way things are.
234 posted on
09/03/2003 3:14:02 PM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson