I would add that while there is some sort of independent historical
evidence for Gen 12-50, I don't think there really is any for Gen 1-11,.
OTOH, there is a LOT of evidence the the Genesis flood stories appear to be
a rewriting of older flood traditions and that Gen 1 appears to be directed
at correcting a creation account based on a primordial struggle of YHWH
with Leviathan the chaos monster-but we've had that discussion!
MAs a rule, if there is some kind of independent historical evidence to show
that the Bible could be accurate, I go for a literal interpetation. If the
independent evidence shows that the Bible is probably wrong (see Lev 19:11,
Ps 96:10), then I look for other interpretations.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 AM
To: Shuan Rose; Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology
>From: Shuan Rose [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:14 AM
>To: Glenn Morton; Asa@Calvin. Edu
>Subject: RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology
> I think there is a difference between proving that Scripture is
>historically accurate and proving that Scripture COULD be accurate.
I agree with this completely.
But one of the problems is that when one tries to prove it COULD be
accurate, everyone chides that person for trying to PROVE it or chides them
for wanting to have historical proof, or chides them for having a YEC
mindset, or chides them for not seeing it for the myths that it is, or
chides them for not understanding that the true message has to do with a
proclamation that there is only one God as opposed to the polytheistic
religions of the day or they chide them for not seeing that it is a poem or
they chide them for...... on and on and on til death do us part.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 01:16:15 EDT