>You wrote that it is impossible to determine the author's intent (given
>your reference to Luke, I'm sure you meant impossible without an explicit
>statement of intent). But it is precisely the author, and not the reader,
>who determines how a text should be read. So, if it is really impossible to
>determine the author's intent, then on what basis do you criticize
>alternative readings of Genesis, and how do you defend your own?
I will simply repost part of my reply to George.
Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NIV) You may say to yourselves, "How can
we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what
a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place
or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That
prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
If this applies to future events, that a prophet whose prophcies do not come
true is not speaking for God, then why does this not apply to the events of
the past? It seems to me that a prophet who claims to be speaking for God
should be able to get it correct in both directions of time.
Because of verses like this, the Bible sets a HIGH standard for itself. Why
should I not take this at face value?
Foundation, Fall and Flood