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