Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

-------Original Message-------
 
From: kenneth greifer
Date: 07/05/06 11:06:49
 
To Joel Stucki and anyone else I offended,
 
I am sorry I said that people who believed that there are two creation
stories are anti-Bible or anti-Torah. I know that that is not true. I just
could not figure out how to explain that I think that the animals were
created twice, but within one creation story, unlike people who believe in
two creation stories .
 
I still don't know how to explain the difference, that's why I mentioned
anti-Bible people who also mention two creation stories as proof that the
Torah is man-made and false. Not everyone who believes in two creation
stories is anti-bible,and I should have said this, but I just did not know
how to say my explanation is not exactly the same as their explanation
without saying it wrong like I did. I really was not trying to put you or
anyone down for having a different opinion than me. I am good at putting my
foot in my mouth, and I am not sure how to pull it out and explain what I
meant .I am sorry.
 
Sincerely,
Kenneth Greifer

*****************************
Perhaps you could start by *not* assuming that anyone who does not read the
Bible literally and as the inerrant word of God is 'anti-Bible'.  It is
actually possible to believe the text was inspired but is not inerrant, or
that 'inspired' means less divine intervention than many conservative Jews
and Christians see in that word.  While those who believe the Bible is
inerrant and to be read literally may be the majority on many email lists,
they are not the majority of Christians, considering that the Orthodox
churches and the Roman Catholic Church, not to mention many Lutherans,
Anglicans and Calvinists do not accept that position.  Not even all
Evangelicals are inerrantists or literalists, so perhaps we should react to
evidence rather than the position from which the evidence is argued.  It
seems pointless to demand that someone must argue from a literalist position
if they don't hold to that position - especially as no part of the Jewish or
Christian Bible explicitly demands a literalist approach to exegesis, and
the traditions of both faiths provide numerous examples of not doing so.  I
enjoy the discussions here - even most of the off-topic ones - but find it
frustrating when it descends to demands to view the Bible in certain ways,
no matter what tradition is being promoted as the only right approach.

Kevin Riley