> 1) Even granting the validity of a concordist approach to early Genesis,
>its real significance is theological - i.e., in what it says about God and the
>relationship between God and the world. Thus discerning its theological content is
>an essential activity, whether it's done sooner or later. The problems Glenn points
>out certainly have to be dealt with, but they aren't avoided simply by saying that
>early Genesis is scientifically &/or historically accurate. A Christian fundamentalist
>& a Jehovah's Witness will agree in large part on an historical & scientific reading of
>Genesis but their understandings of what it means theologically will be worlds apart.
I would like to reiterate George's point here. I gather that Glenn's insistence on a concordist scheme is motivated by a conviction that if the Bible is not inerrant at every point that appears to make a factual claim, then it cannot be regarded as reliable on theology either. But if you believe there is no way to determine a correct theological interpretation, what have you gained when you have a factually inerrant Genesis? The problem of theological interpretation remains and I don't see how it is mitigated by a successful concordist scheme.
Preston N. Garrison, Ph.D.
UTHSCSA-Biochem. Dept. Insert the usual disclaimers here.
7703 Floyd Curl Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78284-7760