From: "Richard Hong" 

>> But how can all its message be accepted without regarding at least some
of it as historical truth?

Randall,

But historical truth has many different levels.  For example, suppose you
tell me that you're thinking about trying cocaine.  So I say to you:
"Randall, I once knew a guy named John.  He thought he'd try cocaine,
just to see what it was like.  He got hooked.  Eventually he lost his job,
his wife, custody of his kids."

Now, is that story historical truth in a moral sense?  Here are some levels:

1.  Suppose I knew such a guy, but his name was Mark, not John.  The story
is still true, even if a fact is wrong.

2.  Suppose I never knew such a guy personally at all, but such a guy
existed.  I would argue that this is still historical truth, because from
the perspective of the story's *purpose*, which is moral teaching, it is
still true because someone knew him, even if it wasn't me.

3.  Suppose no such guy EVER existed, but the possibility of this outcome
remains real.  I would STILL argue that the story is *historically true* -
as long as it is presented in the context of being moral teaching, as it is
here.  Why is it still historical truth?  Because the story can *become*
history.  (And therein lies a clue regarding the Biblical prophets.  They
speak in a tense which comes close to being "future history.")

Rich

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5