> 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.
I would certainly agree with this. However, it seems clear that for
this to prove your point regarding Genesis, the following equation must
correct or come true = will happen or did happen historically
But isn't it true that there are many, many cases in which prophecies
passed the above test through the use of allegory and metaphor, i.e.,
language that never came true in the sense of literal history? I don't
have a Bible in front of me, but I'm certain this is true. Therefore,
the equation above does not necessarily hold. So, since it is possible that
Genesis can pass the test and not be literal history, it remains for you to
tell me why you think it is literal history.
voice: 910.759.4977 or 910.759.4980