You wrote: my point of asking that question is to try to understand your
criteria for deciding if a particular passage is to be read literally or not.
I may be wrong, but I suspect some inconsistency there.
I admit that my "criteria" involves a certain amount of my own subjective
judgment. Though I'm sure I could "reverse engineer" a set of criteria which
would make all of my interpretations of scripture appear to be totally
consistent. : )
You speak Chinese? Have you considered missionary work? On second thought,
considering the fate of Watchman Nee, you may want to stay closer to home.
You wrote: I've read that modern scholars have argued that the Gen 2 creation
account (Yahwist) is actually OLDER than the Gen 1 account (Priestly). What
do you make of that?
They may be right. On the other hand, they may be wrong. A lot of "modern
scholars" have said some things about the contents of scripture which are
obviously incorrect, that is if the Bible is in fact what we believe it to
be. But in either case, I don't see that it matters. God may have revealed
the contents of Gen. 1 to the author or editor of Genesis long after He
revealed the contents of Gen. 2. If He did, I believe He then made sure that
both accounts were placed into the final draft of Genesis in their correct
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 14:08:56 EDT