Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Changing scripture... a lost art? Message-ID: <154@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 18:06:46 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxr.154 Posted: Thu Dec 6 18:06:46 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:33:58 EST References: <1063@trwrba.UUCP>, <463@uwmacc.UUCP> <1124@trwrba.UUCP> <524@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 18 > > Well, now. Do you call up the weatherman when he says what time > the sun will "rise" tomorrow, and chew him out for his antiquainted > geocentrism? Probably not. So what's the beef if the Bible speaks > phenomenologically, i.e., in regular language? > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Now wait a minute. What's the beef in saying the Bible was speaking in "regular" language when it discussed the creation of the world? Remember, the readers were going to be sheperds and farmers. The text HAD to be geared to them and what they saw and felt. I think the original concept stands. The bible is a wonderful guide to morals and everyday living, but as a scientific/historical/geographical document, it ceased to be valid about 500 years ago. Marcel Simon allegra!mhuxr!mfs