I like your words "appear to be", "appears to be" and "probably wrong"
in that they implicitly show the subjective nature of the judgement and
allow for the opposite interpretation as well.
Perhaps this is the reason that I like "hard sciences" as a profession.
There, the rule is the opposite. If a theory is advanced (and it has
positive usefulness) then the requirement (Popper) is to invalidate --
not the other way around.
If one starts with the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is (in some way)
factual (choosing my words carefully), it does not decrease the
spiritual value of the texts. (IMO)
Shuan Rose wrote:
> 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.
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 12:19:46 EDT