Shuan, I heartily oppose the message that you are attempting to convey
here. I get the distinct impression that you feel discussing concordism
is "not worthwhile."
I am a full-fledged member of the ASA. I am President of an organization
(Genesis in Question) that works feverishly at the historical basis of
Gen 1 (not even getting into Gen 2-11). I doubt that you have any idea
how much risk and work is involved in that undertaking. Relationships
need to be built.
I found your entire e-mail offensive. One line in particular really
"stuck in my craw."
>I think this a short sighted
>view that ends up in endless (and IMHO) pointless discussions on trying to
>extract a historical kernel out of Genesis 1-11.
The entire Bible is EXTREMELY historical. I find it utterly offensive to
claim otherwise without scientific or historical evidence. I saw you
present none in your entire e-mail. Quoting scholars is nice, but hardly
authoritative. And what if your selection of scholars is wrong? We all
have to stand before a Holy God one day. I'd be very certain Genesis is
not history before I publicly, strongly claimed otherwise.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 01:07:26 EDT