Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Interpreting the Bible
Message-ID: <1405@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 20:04:15 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1405
Posted: Sat Mar 16 20:04:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 03:46:37 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 27

[]
[I'd sign it.  However, (and this obviates or vitiates much of the
[point of Bill's posting) I would not sign it if a clause such as the
[following were added:  "Point (2) means literal week and I will never
[consider whether it could possibly mean anything else." 

Here we have the classical "out" that is required for all who profess
to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.  "It don't really
mean what it says!!!"

Week doesn't mean week, day isn't really day.  Black is white and war
is peace.

Come on, Paul.  If Genesis is a statement of simple historical fact,
then the words mean what they mean, and not whatever you feel like
making them mean.

Not even Hayakawa tried to make words *THAT* mushy.  (Obscure reference, 
anyone?)

-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307