Re: Something must change

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:52:35 -0500

At 04:40 PM 8/20/98 -0600, Allan Harvey wrote:
>Not to speak for George, but probably a more accurate rephrasing of his
>last sentence would be "... refusal to give serious consideration to the
>possibility that any but a few easily recognized parts of the Bible
>(those that are blatantly not historical chronicle like Psalms,
>Revelation, etc.) could contain other types of literature."

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