I would agree with this.
>With that clarification, I agree with George's criticism of the attitude
>toward the Bible taken by most concordist efforts. We need to let the
>Bible speak to us according to the purpose and style of the inspired
>authors (as best we can determine it), not according to our human
>standards of what we think the Bible ought to be.
But I have not heard those who advocate the position you do explain why
Genesis 12 is historical and Genesis 6-11 aren't. They look like they are
written in the same style. Personal belief seems like a poor rationale for
separating Genesis 12 from Genesis 11.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information